Scotty

Scotty: Falkirk @ 1.53

CDN Girl: Cove @ 2.10

SOS: Hamilton @ 1.50

5 hours ago, Fraz said:

It's not the Trust that's 'bleating about the lack of members' though I'm sure they'd like to have as many as possible and likely more than they have now. It's the club that's 'bleating' about how the Trust is not representative enough by whatever invisible metric they've made up in their heads. 

Has anyone asked them to define what they see as "representative". I am sure that currently those goalposts would be moving/travelling more often than Robbo does between Inverness and Dingwall (or Brora) so a straight answer would be impossible whoever asked the question. "Invisible Metric" is definitely an appropriate term here.  
 

5 hours ago, Fraz said:

As I understand it in the previous couple of years the Trust have tried various ways of getting the club to engage with them and address various raised issues going backbto the 'Fans Forum'. Remember that thing? The one club had a couple of meetings on, refused to release any minutes of it for months then summarily cancelled any further meetings just before they were supposed to be opened up to the common fan. 

To an extent this has always been the way. The club, and some figures within it eye 'externals' and by that I mean anyone not explicitly employed by the club, very suspiciously. It does not matter if you are a volunteer at the club during the week, on matchday in some capacity, painting the gates, running a website, being part of a supporters committee, or generally giving of your time in some fashion. At some point - possibly after a change in the boardroom when a new broom sweeps clean - the default position seems to be "What are they after?" followed closely by "We cant have that". In most cases you are pissing against the wind unless you get really assertive or controversial or they know you are going to "publish and be damned". At the end of the day they are relying on the fact we are all ICT fans and do not want to rock the boat too much, or will accept the platitudes.   
 

5 hours ago, Fraz said:

The matchday survey was they most recent and most labour intensive way they have tried to get the club into a productive dialogue. I hear they club's comments were essentially that it was 'too negative', that's kinda the point Just makes it look like all the club was is to have smoke blown up their ass about how great they are. Any negatively is either just brushed over or even worse maked the club just close off dialogue. 

Someone once said you cant put lipstick on a pig !! Thats how low we have sunk when I have to quote that individual about the state of our club!

5 hours ago, Fraz said:

I'm not on the Trust but I am a member. I did though used to be on it years ago when it was Caley Jags Together, we had meetings often at the stadium and although we didn't always see eye to eye with the club, we had a pretty open dialogue and they did listen to issues raised and often acted on them to make changes where they could, Kenny Cameron was always willing to sit down and discuss things. 

This website has been through every incarnation at boardroom level. With Dougie McGilvray, we were just starting and got the treatment the Trust is getting now. I understand that. Aside from the fact we were new, the internet itself was less developed and media looked at is suspiciously and 'traditional media' dropped poison in the right ears. With Sutherland, Savage, Cameron and all others up to Rae, we and other volunteers were embraced by the club and worked together with them on multiple things to get communication flowing. That included working with Graeme Bennett initially who was keen to have fans included, but the big uptick was when Ken Thompson came on board in the background. He oversaw a culture shift in the attitude that pervaded things right up until the day Kenny Cameron resigned as chairman and Muirfield Mills took the reins. Since then it has been downhill (fast).   

5 hours ago, Fraz said:

I see absolutely nothing from the current (off field) management at the club that would indicate that they have any interest to hear anything fans say either through the Trust or individually. In fact looking at the orange strip on July 12th and weekly games of 'Where's Robbo' I reckon they're having a nice wee laugh about it while pocketing our cash. One day they'll saunter off and our club will be left in shambles if that's not already the case. 

Ditto. 

9 hours ago, big cherly said:

Again you pump the same theme. ‘Only the Trust is mature enough to represent the fans’. And the rest shut up!  I joined the Forum as I considered it a conduit free to ICT fans to communicate anything regarding the team and club they support. - Now if the Forum is solely for the purpose of unofficially promoting the Trust’s ‘Line’ and it’s members recruitment campaign, then fine I know I’m an outsider and not welcome!

It is free for anyone to express their opinion here provided it doesn't not cross the boundary into defamation/slander/libel or breach good taste enter into bullying and name calling etc. Its all in the rules of the site. Whilst individual posters are legally responsible for their own postings, I will also always protect the site even if it means removing posts that may occasionally not quite cross the line but are headed there fast.  Judgement call on that one but I don't expect to agree with all posters, or them with me. I once tried to please all of the people all of the time but gave that up years ago when I realised that was a losing battle!

9 hours ago, big cherly said:

I like to remain free to give my opinion be it confrontational, stupid or thought provoking on the club’s future progression.

You are. Others are free to disagree and make that point. Neither party should descend into a slagging match though as that makes both guilty of other site rule breaches. 
 

9 hours ago, big cherly said:

So here’s a simple question to whoever can speak for the Trust.  ‘Did the Trust vote and back/support the 2 year contract extension for the manager’.  That would help me clarify my misinterpretation of the Trust!

I would hope not, but that would just be my personal opinion. The club would not ask anyone for an opinion. On a personal level I did not back a new contract. Getting to the cup final had more to do with Fiona than BD ! At best, a rolling contract we (or he) could terminate with minimal fuss. 

3 hours ago, big cherly said:

Yes, thank you, where to start! - I take full ownership of all questions or posters I raise and don’t hide behind any veil. Not frightened to challenge laziness or incompetence or personal jabs as you have. So if my posters irritate you and ‘others’ of a sedate sensitive disposition then that gives me more satisfaction and know I am achieving the level of debate on the matters I believe are necessary!  Wish I didn’t, but what the hell, if we can’t ask difficult questions of our club and selves in our current position, when can we??

Lets focus our anger on the club and the officials rather than each other. Allowing them to divide and conquer or encourage disgruntlement in the ranks of the support only weakens us and what should be a loud and combined message of "enough is enough" . 

I will be there in spirit as a paid up Trust member.

Just my Tuppence worth, but it is time for everyone to put aside the distrust that comes with this type of situation and make it clear to whoever represents US when it comes to any talks with the club that the current situation is untenable. The Trust should be the conduit to organising or requesting an EGM if the current board remain invisible and ineffective. 

We cannot have a CEO, board and SLO who won't talk to fans. In the case of the SLO that's his feckin job FFS. 

We cannot have a sporting director who spends more time in Dingwall than the team bus or directors seats at whichever location we are playing. You were supposed to be an important cog in the wheel. If you are not there then it's stealing a wage. 

We can't have a manager and coaches who see something isn't working so try the same thing again and again to see if they get a different outcome. That's the definition of clueless. Teams.know how to play us, we don't have a clue how to play a pub team. 

Dodds has to go. He could reclaim some dignity by resigning rather than getting sacked. No package required or requested. His backroom team need to go with him. 

Gardiner needs to go. Too many day to day issues, problems and ill will for his position to be anything other than untenable. I know many examples of situations where suggestions have been made to the club, even at their own request just before COVID, but these suggestions or money making leads were completely ignored seemingly because they were not his idea. No idea how true that opinion is other than personal knowledge of one really good lead given to him - by me - that was never followed up on. 

Ross Morrison may have been a supporter of the club long before he was chairman, and seems like a decent guy when I have encountered him, (or.passed.him that lead) but he is making the same mistake with Gardiner that Kenny C did with Richie Foran. Too much faith and misplaced trust. Time for eyes to be opened and difficult conversations to take place. If he can't show SG a P45 then he needs to award himself one.

This is the lowest point our club has been at on its 30 year existence and if we want it to reach any more milestones the rot has to stop NOW. 

The answer to the topic title is : TODAY. Wholescale change required from top to bottom. 

Scotty

• HT: 0-0 
• FT: 1-2

CDN Girl

• HT: 1-0 
• FT: 1-1

SOS

• HT: 0-1 
• FT: 0-1

Glad you cut off your quote here: 

Scotty: QOS @ 1.66

CDN Girl: Spartans @ 2.10

SOS: Dumbarton @ 1.90

Scotty

• HT: 1-0
• FT: 2-1
• 1st Scorer ICT: Billy Mckay
• 1st Scorer Pars: McCann
• Crowd: 1899

CDN Girl

• HT: 0-0
• FT: 1-0
• 1st Scorer ICT: Shaw
• 1st Scorer Pars: Wighton
• Crowd: 1955

SOS

• HT: 1-1
• FT: 3-1
• 1st Scorer ICT: Brooks
• 1st Scorer Pars: O'Halloran
• Crowd: 2012

Scotty

• HT:  0-0
• FT: 1-2
• 1st Scorer ICT: Billy Mckay
• 1st Scorer Air: Gallagher
• Crowd: 1844

CDN Girl

• HT: 1-1
• FT: 2-3
• 1st Scorer ICT: Brooks
• 1st Scorer Air: O'Connor
• Crowd: 1901

SOS

• HT: 0-1
• FT: 1-1
• 1st Scorer ICT: Lodovica
• 1st Scorer Air: Todorov
• Crowd: 1777

Scotty: QOS @ 1.75

CDN Girl:  Queens Park @ 2.15

SOS: Clyde @ 1.85

Fixtures now added up to Week 11. To predict for his game select WK 11 from the dropdown or just enter all your scores from the My Predictions link on the left. 

yes we can do that. Usually @Gringo takes care of this but I will try and add them shortly. 

Oh, this is depressing ... I am off over to the Toronto FC message boards for some happy discussion!

Oh wait, Toronto FC sacked their manager recently, the fans want the president to resign as the rot "starts at the top", the team cant buy a goal or a win to save themselves, two of the three 'stars' (Lorenzo Insigne and Federico Bernadeschi) seem to have utterly switched off, and despite having the highest payroll in MLS (until Messi arrived) were sitting second bottom of the table with only Miami below them ... this is the same Miami that - with Messi's help along with Jordi Alba and Busquets - have stormed through the Leagues Cup so far against MLS and Mexican Liga MX sides and who will no doubt carry that form into the MLS games when the season resumes next week.  Funny how things are running in parallel right now with the situation at ICT!!  OH... and TFC's interim manager? One Terry Dunfield, formerly of TFC and very briefly, getting a few games and red carded in a Ross County shirt! 

Man as much as I love football, I hate it at the same time! 

8 hours ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

Fer fecks sake Manny - yer going feckin soft - Let the lumberjack fight his own battles.

Just for you

He also spells his name with one T so it would have been Scoty which just looks all wrong

On 8/12/2023 at 5:18 PM, bdu98196 said:

Oh look, the mods are getting upset at criticism of the directors. I'm sure given all your powers you can change the title if you want but I'll reiterate given the nature of 2 other threads on this site its clearly about our CEO.

Have to admit, when I read the title, I thought it was about me also and wondered what I had done overnight while sleeping... been around longer than Mr Gardiner too, especially on this site. Then you seem to be getting all high and mighty when someone calls you out on it which is a little out of order IMHO. I will let you decide to change the title or not, but personally, I dont like it!  

Scotty

• HT:  1-0
• FT: 1-1
• 1st Scorer ICT: Billy Mckay
• 1st Scorer Ayr: Bryden
• Crowd: 1988

CDN Girl

• HT: 1-1
• FT: 2-2
• 1st Scorer ICT: Shaw
• 1st Scorer Ayr: McKenzie
• Crowd: 2015

SOS

• HT:  0-1
• FT: 1-2
• 1st Scorer ICT: Bray
• 1st Scorer Ayr: Murphy
• Crowd: 2166

Scotty: Alloa @ 2.00

CDN Girl: Partick @ 2.00

SOS:  Clyde @ 1.80

3 hours ago, big cherly said:

until someone provides me with achievable targets then I remain out with the trust the trust route. 

And that's the catch 22. The club will not set "achievable targets" with some random person behind an internet pseudonym, even if that person decided that they would longer be anonymous. So that begs the question on just who could get them to sit down and set some targets. Whether you like/dislike, trust/distrust the ST or anyone on the board (as is your right), it doesn't really change the fact that this is the most likely body with a chance to galvanise support from a wide spectrum and unite fans to get something done and hold the feet of those who are currently unaccountable and increasingly aloof, to the fire.   The Trust could identify and discuss Specific, Measurable, and Attainable items from the survey or other feedback that are Relevant to the support and agree a Timeline with the club to hit certain milestones or benchmarks. Thats S.M.A.R.T.

If the same body can increase membership and voting share whilst doing this, then they do become more and more "strong and relevant" and let's face it, they stand more chance of that than any of us do as individuals (unless someone has an Uncle Roy sized wallet?). If people have an issue with giving the current board of the Trust this responsibility, then as has been mentioned already, anyone is free to stand/serve or influence the policy through participation. However, it's like every other volunteer body ICT has ever had, it's not hard to get on the committee, because not enough people are willing to get involved ... it is harder to get off the committee. I was on the predecessor of this back in the early 2000s. I had to emigrate for my resignation to be accepted [joke - mostly]    

On a personal level, I am going to break my own online rules and use credit card to join since I can't use alternate payment options and will be happy to proxy my tiny shareholding to them should they want this for future meetings. I personally will also hold the Trust accountable in their own right using the same 'SMART' process. If they set goals with the club, then i would expect them to do their darndest to achieve those goals, and if they don't then I may choose not to renew membership and/or revoke my proxy. The aim here is to get the club listening and pointing in the right direction again, and however we can get that done is great. If anyone has other suggestions or better plans or simply doesn't want to place any faith in the trust, that is your right and I respect that. When it comes down to it, we are all ICT fans, and we all want what's best for the club and that is for us to be heading up the table not down, playing good football, and being fiscally responsible off the pitch while also having a social conscience and community focus. We have lost a lot of that in the last few years so getting some of that back would soon begin to turn the tide.    

4 hours ago, big cherly said:

Ok Scotty  

Sound case and reasoning behind all groups back the Trust route. It’s open however on a few fronts for me. So respectfully my questions to you are:

1) what is the acceptable criteria to measure against for implementing change with the club powers 

2) how long is the period to wait to measure any change / improvement.

3) what’s plan b 

bc

1. no idea
2. no idea
3. no idea

From a personal point of view, I think most people would notice any improvements just as we see the opposite right now. For me, if I see incremental improvements based on changing behaviour (rather than one-offs), signs that we are moving in the right direction, then that might start to satisfy 1 & 2 for me. For others, what they want to see may be different. In some ways, that's where the survey comes into play. It's a representative document with a broad cross section of respondents so if the club want to sit down with the ST and discuss how things can improve and set "SMART" goals then I am fine with that.   Plan 'B' no idea, but I hope no-one really has to look to that as that would indicate the club are continuing to ignore the very real concerns of their shareholders. 

I always remember this (or similar) graphic from a training session decades ago where I was encouraged to set realistic and measurable goals - I try to stick to that to this day .... 

2 minutes ago, The Mantis said:

if there was any kind of campaign worth joining, great, but otherwise I’ve no idea.

For me, I think the best option - whether some agree with the organisation and its current leadership or not - is to make the Supporters' Trust "strong and relevant". Call out that statement for the BS it is!! An inbuilt voting share of 10% plus the potential to have other supporters to perhaps proxy their personal shareholdings to the Trust may be the quickest and possibly most effective way to have a voice heard. 

I hear the arguments made, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but for those who decry the lack of communication from the club, then the Supporters Trust is at least communicating on here in this forum, and has been reasonably often, as well as the subforum they asked us to setup (https://caleythistleonline.com/forum/152-supporters-trust/) and it should be noted that they also just setup their own feedback forum on the back of the report: https://www.ictsupporterstrust.org/forum

Only issue I have is I don't use credit card for personal online purchases and there does not appear to be a PayPal or alternate payment option otherwise I would be reporting now that I have joined already because the 'strong and relevant' comment has tipped the scales for me.    

19 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

The P&J also quoted the Club saying "if we could have a strong and relevant supporters group going forward, it would be very helpful".  As fans, we need to hold the Club to these statements. If fans can get behind the Supporters Trust then that would seem to be the best way to get a constructive dialogue between the Club and the supporters and to get these issues addressed.  If the Trust had the backing of a large proportion of the fan base, then I am sure the club would not get away with cancelling the sponsors' night or failing to follow up on season-ticket renewals, for example. In the longer term, what we need is fans' representation on the Club Board. The Supporters Trust is the obvious channel for that, but it would need the Trust to be significantly stronger than it is now for that to ever happen. The bottom line here is that the stronger the Supporters Trust is, the better the communication with the club will be. The Trust is trying to get the concerns of funds addressed.  If fans don't get behind the Trust and join it, it will simply give the Club an excuse not to address the very issues that fans are complaining about.

If that quote from the club is correct and completely in context, then it is worrying.

I am guessing it came from the CEO as it sounds like the kind of verbiage he has used in the past. If so, then exactly what does this employee of the club, which is owned by its underlying shareholders define as a "strong and relevant" group? If we assume that the season ticket base is somewhere between 1000 and 2000 as often quoted, then is the definition of "strong" or "relevant" 10% 20% or 50% of that number? Who has arbitrarily decided the level or does it vary depending on how accountable you choose to be? Does an organisation with 200 paid members and a minimum 10% voting right in the organisation for which this employee works cut it? no? 500 members with the same 10% right? If so why the delineation based on number rather than voting share?  We (CTO) have - on average - 5000 unique 'real people' per month visiting the site when you exclude anonymous visits, bots, search engines etc. Are we strong or relevant? or, as has been levied at us in the past are we just a bunch of whingeing naysayers in the eyes of some folks and happy clappers in the eyes of others? Are sizeable numbers of Twitter and Facebook users relevant even though not organised into a single cohesive group? Social media postings, even on an individual basis if strong enough can often cause policy changes in even the biggest companies. What about Podcast listeners? or Travel Club members? or section 94? all of whom seem to be relevant to the club sometimes and not others. Bottom line is that when enough people from all of these disparate 'groups' are unhappy about the situation then the powers that be should really take notice. Whether you are a proponent of the Trust or see issue with it, it doesnt really matter, the reality is that the survey is an excellent document and one that the club would be ludicrously stupid to ignore or write off just because it says what they don't want to hear.   

7 hours ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

I suppose an issue is also that we came from the bottom and saw winning and entertaining football for many years and appeared to be consolidating a top league position. We have dropped a level and the fare has too. I often have comparison thoughts between Pele and Dodds which brings on a shiver !! I will be ICT tillidie but the main source of my anger is that the club are ignoring the support. It is clear that there is a broken dressing room and nothing has actually changed or even looked like changing. And where has the cash gone from the Cup run. It has helped balance the books which is a success for some. Fraid that this forum - and probably the survey - is populated by the pi$hed off and I would love to hear the views of the faithful and the yoof

The highlighted bit is the money shot here IMHO. We have been through all of the highs and lows together and for most of it we showed "TogetherNESS" as the old cliche went ... but sometimes during our 29-year history, we have gone it alone with the support and club badly misaligned. These have typically been the deepest lows and the club at those times has become more and more insular thinking it protects itself if it does not communicate. This is the worst I have seen communication in my memory and to be sure, it does NOTHING to protect the club, just alienates more and more people. For fans to not even get a reply from the SLO or when fans send generic emails with zero controversy and those are still ignored, is unacceptable and if we were ever to aim for the premiership again, this would also pose a problem for achieving UEFA club licensing for the top division. Its not that hard. You start with the small stuff. reply to emails and engage the support. Perhaps one day you can graduate to multiple paragraphs or regular communications? 

5 hours ago, STFU said:

I want to, once again, feel like I am a part of the club and that the contribution fans make is valued and directed towards improving the overall experience.  That experience is not just results, it includes matchday, fan engagement (particularly with younger fans), and something which we can take pride in.

 ^ this  %

5 hours ago, STFU said:

I don't have the time to give to, or faith in, the Supporters Trust.  Sadly they exhibit many of the things we see in the club.  An anonymous leader who only seems happy to put their name/face to the successes (the survey results), a lack of connect with the fanbase, the poor us "we're only a small team trying hard" excuse given whenever challenged, etc.  When you look back to people like David Sutherland, Peter Murphy and Don Johnstone, you always felt like they were working to improve things, be that initiatives with the club or calling them out on shortcomings.  They were visible, available and engaging.  Strange, or maybe not, that you no longer see or hear from them?!

You are entitled to your opinion, but I can't really agree with this. Over the last 29 years there have been various incarnations of official supporters' organisations with varying names. The commonality between them is that they were always run by unpaid volunteers, who have the club in their heart. Is it the same group of people? yes, quite frequently its the same names in the frame every year, but that's because these are often the only ones stepping up.  Do those people become jaded after a while? absolutely - talking from experience on that one. You can only bang your head against a brick wall so often. In the case of specific individuals you mention, yes, they did a good/great job of engagement either while volunteers or in some cases while in the employ of the club, but I think in those cases life happened with job changes, moving houses etc. or they also banged heads against brick walls, so they no longer actively participate.  

5 hours ago, STFU said:

I get what you say about boycotting businesses, but I feel it's the only option left to me.  My hope?  That if the club won't listen to fans, then they might start listening if/when other income streams start drying up.  The club's actions already mean fewer eyes on ad boards and strips, so no fans, no value to businesses in paying for these things.  Include the failed concert shambles and the reputational damage caused there, and even the most resolute of optimists can surely see that the threat to corporate support already exists, I'm just being more direct in the (small) hope that someone who can change things realises before it's too late.

Again, you are entitled to show your displeasure how you want, and it is perhaps wrong of me to comment in either direction given that, other than the player sponsorship (for last season, or for the season just started) which we have heard nothing about since the end of the season, I have very little commercial interaction with the club or local businesses except when visiting. Wholeheartedly agree about the concert debacle and to this day I wonder why they never looked to talk with (or perhaps they did?) someone like Les Kidger or Kenny Cameron who had previously run successful concerts either at the stadium, as a (CK Events) partnership, or on their own. 

5 hours ago, STFU said:

There are already people on the board propping up the club financially.  I don't believe lack of resource is the issue, it's the misuse of that resource that finds us where we are.  Just think of how much more could be filtered towards the team and improving infrastructure if we weren't paying for a CEO, a Sporting Director, a Video Analyst, a Sports Scientist and what appears to be 2 assistant team managers who are moving the club backwards on and off the park.  We have a bigger senior staff contingent now than we had when at our most successful, and are now at our worst in nigh on 20 years.

indeed. All seems very unsustainable. 

5 hours ago, STFU said:

The Youth setup, I believe, is now a separate entity from the club and does not draw any financial resource from it.  The same goes for our Community section.  The club can take little/no credit for that these days (other than use if the name), but they do, and lack of transparency on how it all works allows that to happen.

Think it has pretty much been like that for a few years hasn't it? 

5 hours ago, STFU said:

It's not as if all of this just started happening.  As others have said, the decline has been 7/8 years in the making.  This is not a knee jerk reaction from fans, and there are zero positive signs of change.  The current Chairman, Board and CEO have been in place for long enough now to get past any honeymoon/bedding in period and it is clear that they are not willing, or not capable, of halting the decline, let alone reversing it.

For me, enough is enough.

Getting to that point too.  For me, one of the best (worst) examples of where we wasted money we didn't need to, was Pixellot or whatever it was called. Through the years with volunteers like Don and Andy and others ICT built a pretty good (dare I say award winning) social and broadcast media team, but it seems that this was not really good enough for some as volunteers are (and to an extent always have been) viewed with suspicion at ICT. "What are you after?", "Why are you doing this?", "What's in it for you?". Some people can't grasp that volunteers can simply be in it because they want what's best for their club and are willing to put in time or services if they cant pour in hard cash. In the end we chose to replace that perfectly good arrangement of Andy doing the excellent camera and editing work with a baldy headed social media moment that still does the rounds on social media and not in a good way. Why did we do it? Was it because the perfectly good system in place needed replacing? or was it more to do with it not being an idea that came from a specific source? That ethos is a sure recipe for failure and its painful to watch.       

1 hour ago, Robert said:

I use a mobile and was accessing it through the menu, then features.

Depending on the phone OS then this might be an issue. Apparently older phones or older versions of iOS and Android are not good at interpreting multi domain certificates. Haven't done much research on this as it's the first time someone highlighted this.

18 minutes ago, Scotty said:

cant replicate this issue. I can get here without any problem: https://caleythistleonline.com/features/predictionleague.html/

You should also be able to access it on its own subdomain: https://predictions.caleythistleonline.com/

Taking a quick look on google and you may be getting this because our security certificate covers not only caleythistleonline.com but also subdomain wildcards -- ie. predictions.caleythistleonline.com and other subdomains we use to keep things tidy. Solution seems to be to generate certificates for each domain and subdomain separately. I will take a look when time permits but in the meantime you should be able to access one of the two URL\s above. Let me know if that's not the case.

https://help.liquidweb.com/s/article/What-Is-Server-Name-Indication-SNI