Scotty

Barrowman scores for County !

Hayes :huh: 2-2

Where you getting that from ? I am using SportBox and they have Connolly on in 54 for Mendes and no mention of the other one (although they dont list Woodburn as asub !)

First one - according to Robbo - was an error from Esson or at least something he should have had covered - Aitken scored from 6 inches. Second was a good strike from Roberts. Will fire up a link for Robbo's HT report in a couple of minutes time when its been broadcast. Robbo's HT Report

word of today ....... (with apologies to CTV Canada for bastardising their olympic logo for a better purpose :huh:)

PArtick 1-0 County

lets hope we can bounce back !! Going to grab another coffee but surprisingly, I am not that disconsolate as I think we are still in it !!! The same scoreline in other games has me reaching for the off switch on the monitor but for some reason, today, I believe !

Woodburn is the missing sub according to the team lines read out by Robbo on R Scotland

i doubt it. one of these times the window I have loaded from the links above (Sportbox) will refresh and show 5 ! happens all the time.

.style2 {text-align: center;}.style6 {border: 1px solid #FFFF99;text-align: center;}.style8 {text-align: center;border-style: solid;border-width: 0;}.style10 {color: #FFFF00}.style12 {font-size: 18pt;font-weight: bold;} THE MATCH Inverness CT -V- Ayr Utd PREVIEW Caledonian Stadium, Inverness 3:00 PM ...follow us on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/ICTOnline ...discuss it during the game in the CHATROOM Live Match Coverage AUDIO: BBC Open All Mics (browser) BBC Open All Mics (Real Player or Windows Media Player) Moray Firth Radio (browser) [uK/VPN ONLY] TEXT UPDATES: BBC Sportbox SKY TEAM LINEUPS

Black left on a Bosman so there was no transfer deal ! I think Guzz and Uncle Albert could tell you a similar style of story when they offered to donate the electronic subs board when we were last in D1. I have said it for years, (and years, and years, and years) ... the club's biggest two failings have been their failure to communicate effectively with the fanbase (something I experienced first hand when running this site as the official site - getting info was like pulling teeth in a pair of boxing gloves), and the loss of our 'friendly' identity where barriers have gone up and suspicion about the ulterior motives of those offering to help replaced the original attitude which was to embrace offers like that.

Pulling a stunt like that would be lower than a snake's belly IMHO and I would hope (and am pretty sure) we wouldnt even consider it let alone get the SFA/SFL to rule on it. If the roads are bad and a team is late then the kickoff should be delayed to accomodate them or the match postponed, its not like they wouldnt be making the attempt to get here ! I am a great believer in Karma and in 'what goes around comes around' ... just think how often we travel to away games over a fair distance and how we would squeal and howl if anyone tried that on us !

removed the "dont care" option as the original poster/pollster seemed a little upset that his poll had this option added ........ still dont care though !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotlan...ast/8533791.stm http://www.metro.co.uk/news/814688-anyone-...park-racism-row A company selling "Anyone but England" T-shirts for this year's World Cup has rejected suggestions it is racist after police in Aberdeen visited its store. so what do you think ? Me personally, I am going for banter ;)

added a dont care option (and voted for it) ;)

I agree in part with your comments but it would be foolish/naive not to ask pertinent questions and I feel that is all that Donald has done, albeit in his normal and some might say 'bull in a china shop' fashion. Some of us may have asked the questions in a more subtle way but at the end of the day the questions would have been the same and if asked more diplomatically may have received no attention whatsoever. I have no axe to grind with David F Sutherland. I respect the man and think he is and always has been a very astute businessman who has proven over a number of years to have been a very steadying hand at the tiller of ICT whether in the forefront or in the background. He brought us back from the brink not once but twice and also facilitated the building of the North and South stands in record time to allow us to play SPL games in Inverness. I know him on an "acquaintence" level and have had several conversations with him and also interviewed him once for an article on here. On all occasions I got nothing but the impression that what he does (that is ICT related) he does for the benefit of ICT. However, as I said above, he is a very astute businessman and in some respects he reminds me of Kevin O'Leary from the Canadian and USA versions of "Dragons Den". Kevin maintains that there is no sentiment in business, only profit or strategy for other gain and I believe that whilst Mr Sutherland is not overtly or purposely doing anything detrimental to ICT, his relationship with the club is not as philanthropic a venture as some would believe, especially as the club sits in the heart of an area zoned for leisure development that has been waiting to happen for a number of years. That development has started (slowly) with the building of the marina at the harbour. The recent relaxation of rules governing the land-use of another area (owned by a different ICT official) should see it develop further, and if there is an economic recovery the development may (or may not) continue to grow through the area of the Longman where the stadium sits and which formed part of the local plan a few years ago. Its a long game and a bit of a gamble but the rewards could be high for those involved. If ICT can piggyback on Mr Sutherland's business acumen and he makes a profit along the way, I have absolutely no problem with that. He was there when we needed him and I dont grudge him a penny. However, if any of his actions are detrimental to ICT or cause our club to decline because its tenancy in the area is seen as an impediment to any proposed development then I would say we should all be very angry ! At the very least we should be seeking assurances that there is a long term strategy in place for the club. The stadium ownership question is at the very heart of all this of course. The conspiracy theorists will argue that because we no longer own the stadium it can be sold out from underneath us and we can be forcibly evicted to another location thus freeing up a considerable footprint of land for lucrative development. I can see the merit in this theory but I do not subscribe to it as I do not believe there is any way that it can be 'sold' or 'spun' to ICT fans in a positive fashion. However, as a shareholder, I do have a distinct recollection that as a group we voted for the stadium to be put into a charitable trust which would alleviate our debt and allow us to reduce it without having the burden round our necks. We would not "own" the stadium but then again nor would anyone else and when the debt was gone and the charitable trust was no longer needed, ownership could potentially have reverted back to ICT. If anything other than that has happened, it has happened without the approval of the required % of shareholders voting for it and those shareholders deserve an explanation. The explanation may be simple and may make sense and could blow any and all conspiracy theories out of the water but if that is the case why not just say so? The continued silence about this issue does nothing but make this issue fester longer and make more people wonder if there is actually something to the story?

28.1% of a football club. If you are a billionaire that would help you in your aim to one day become a millionaire :D

So realistically, there are 2,203,767 shares out of a possible 3,063,978 that are in the hand of a diverse bunch of shareholders and we have 28.1% of our total number of available shares sitting un-purchased.

except your bald spot Donview :thumb01n:

According to our last set of accounts ..... We have a total of the following shares authorised (ie. issued) 3,063,978 'ordinary' shares 2,000,000 ordinary 'A' shares 1,000,000 ordinary "B" shares 3 ordinary "C" shares I am not sure what the "A", "B" and "C" shares represent (someone did explain it to me once but I have forgotten) but none of those have voting rights attached to them. Only "ordinary shares" have a voting right. Of these shares that have been authorised for sale, there are currently the following numbers actually sold or held 2,203,767 ordinary shares (leaving 860,211 available for purchase) 600,000 ordinary 'A' shares 300,000 ordinary "B" shares 3 ordinary "C" shares so our total share value is 3.1m (or 2.2 for those with voting rights) The list of shareholders I have is quite old, but out of the 2.2m shares held by individuals or companies there is a fairly significant spread including a lot of people with 5 or 10 thousand and such like so its not all held by one company or individual, even if our major shareholder does have around 30% when you tally up personal and corporate holdings. Of the "A", "B" and "C" shares, these have sat at the same levels for 10 or more years so I am not sure what the deal is with them. As for the stadium, dont see how that would be a cost to purchase? unless of course the answer to the stadium ownership question reveals we have actually sold the stadium rather than put it into a charitable trust as the rank and file shareholders voted for.

Our Terry in the HN has backed our chairman and his account sounds pretty spot on to me !!! http://www.highland-news.co.uk/news/fullst...ll-off_row.html ICT boss Butcher explained: "We were all set to go. We were on a good run of form and we had everyone available, which was great. I know Queen of the South had one or two injury problems and they had already played last midweek against Ayr. Everything was in our favour and we were so annoyed that the game was called off. "The weather had been severe, but at 3pm on Saturday the pitch was fine. The referee was under pressure from Queen of the South, who were very keen for the game not to go on. In the end, they got their wish and the game was called off, so we were really disappointed and it means that will now come as a midweek fixture. "Our chairman was quite right to come out and tell it like it was. We put the heating on and it was working fine. But, under pressure from Queens, the referee said the game shouldn't go ahead. You can't have your cake and eat it by criticising us and then, at the same time, wanting the game to be called off. "If they had stayed on a bit longer the game could have gone ahead. We're obviously desperate for the game to be on this weekend against Ayr United and we will be taking every possible action to make sure the game does go on."

I think you may be close to what the two arguments will be Birdog and the interpretation of them is the nub of the matter .... this is how I think it will pan out in terms of standpoints. MN - He felt pushed out based on the earlier statements of directors and the major shareholder, so felt he had no other option than to move (in his eyes on ICT's instigation and with their blessing). He looked at Dinamo, a club in his homeland and where he had played before as the ideal solution as they would pay ICT a decent fee (thus earning him a decent cut) and he would be in his homeland rather than some far flung outpost of Europe (or even MLS !!!). ICT - Basically did want to get him off the wage bill but will argue that he chose and actively promoted Dinamo over other clubs that may have paid more and therefore (in ICT's eyes) instigated the transfer. I still think Niculae will win this, especially as he has already been ruled by FIFA to be in the right, and fear we are throwing money at it that we can ill afford but thinking about it the way I have listed above, I can also see why ICT think they may have a case even if the 'other club' defence would effectively be nullified by the fact that whichever bid ICT accepted, the player could veto by not agreeing personal terms ........

no-one is taking the **** !!! You are making ludicrous statements and calling the club "diddies" at every opportunity (12 times in your first 12 posts on this site) without the facts or reasoning to back it up. Yes the club can be run in a 'diddy' fashion in some ways at times but you are fighting a losing battle on this particular episode as they are not at fault on this one. Not sure whether you have an axe to grind with the club over something or what it is if you have one, or even if you are just a County fan on a wind up but it certainly comes across as one of those. Bottom line, the USH is immaterial as it is not a requirement, whether the club switched it on on Thursday, Friday, or 10 minutes before the ref arrived matters not a jot (although late morning Friday was the actual timing). The call-off is also not their fault, the referee makes that decision and as has been stated time and time again on this thread, ONE of the clubs was desperate to get the game played and it was not the away side !!! If there was a mixup between inspections on Friday, Saturday AM and the only one we know that actually took place on Saturday at 11AM that too is not the fault of the club it is a communication issue between SFL/SFA/Referees Association I take enough pot shots at the club myself and we all know Don's recent history of speaking his mind and asking questions, but really I do feel obliged to go to bat for the club on this one as they are being slated for events that were largely out of their control.

no-one is saying they wanted the game called off .... just that their manager was (allegedly) not that upset at the referee's decision to call it off. but you are right, its time to move on, plenty more threads to misinterpret :P

To me that reads as though Niculae wanted to go and the club were not standing in his way. The fact that clubs from various parts of Europe had submitted bids suggests that someone other than ICT had put word around that he was available. Niculae was at the Euros and got a fair bit of attention ...... so there are two possible scenarios in my mind. 1. Clubs picked up on the fact that this player, at the Euros, was playing for a small club who had gone to press weeks before the competition to say they were not sure they could pay him for another year effectively inviting bids for him ...... astute clubs would know that in this scenario they could pick up an international striker for what to bigger clubs was 'pennies'. 2. Someone put the word out at the Euros. Could it be the player? or could it have been someone from ICT attending the event? At the end of the day I doubt the full story will ever come out or will ever sound the same from both sides ofthe argument, but if it drags on for a few months more it will have been hanging round us for two seasons and that is just not doing anyone any good.