CaleyD

No mention of the countless private meetings between Rangers and Celtic over the years...and more recently as he approached the administrators to ask for their support in blocking the move. Sadly, from what I understand, it would need a 11-1 majority to have the voting structure changed. The only real hope is that someone can find a loophole/clause which says Rangers have no right to a vote whilst they are in administration and it can be pushed through on the back of that asap.

Apologies for the delay....let voting commence!!!!

I was going to post about worrying about what we do and letting other things take care of themselves, but I thought the following would put the point across better......

Yeah, but we're not being offered the chance to obtain already issued shares in addition to those that would be received by investing in the club, which is what I believe is happening here. But as I said, it's a fairly mute point because even if the offer was there then I don't believe it would be taken up.

For once!!! I've remained largely silent over a major event at ICT. That's not to say I don't have an opinion, or indeed that I do not have any concerns.....however, as has already been highlighted, there's only one real reason why anyone would look to be putting money in to ICT at the moment, and that is because they have a genuine interest in improving things. Whether that is because they fancy a wee play thing, or because they have a real passion for ICT and the means to invest is anyone's guess at the moment, but there's no denying that ICT need a bit of money and some new direction and with nothing to be "stripped" in terms of assets then we have little to lose one way or the other. ICT's quest for the SPL may have been achieved without saddling us with any debt, but it also left us with no money, nor assets which to borrow against to allow us to grow the business. We are effectively surviving hand to mouth and without change and investment then it's only a matter of time before we face an event that will sink us. I'd love to be sitting here knocking the idea of the current deal on the basis that the fans were never given the option to invest at the currently stated level in return for a greater share in the club...but the truth is that there's not enough desire among the fans for such a thing at this moment in time. Until that changes there's little point in, or valid basis for, creating a fuss over it.

Plans were posted on here somewhere not that long ago.

In the clubs defence, I'm not really sure what more they can be doing in that regard. Every school in the area knows that they can pretty much have as many tickets as they need for any/every home match if they want them....which begs the question as to why they aren't taking up the offer!!! We constantly hear the complaints about ICT not doing enough...but I think it's equally justified to point the finger at the city, the schools and the residents and to ask if they are doing enough. ICT has done for more for Inverness than Inverness has done for it...would be nice to think that the situation balanced itself out at some point in time.

Just been pointed out to me that the Shirts we got at the FFiT course may actually have been old surplus team stock and not replica shirts...so that could explain why it's holding up a bit better.

I'm no fan of Errea, but that is mostly to do with the lack of larger sizes...both with shirts and across the entire product range...meaning I get to purchase myself a shirt or a polo or something only once every couple of years if I am lucky. I don't think you can really pull Errea apart (solely) on the basis that the quality does not compare to strips from years ago as pretty much all modern day strips are of inferior quality....certainly in terms of durability. That's progress for you though and the demand for modern light weight materials that come with specific wash instructions that need to be followed to the letter etc is part of the cause. In saying that...I have a shirt I was given when I did the FFiT course and it's been worn during exercise and washed dozens of times and is still in as good a condition as it was the first day I got it!!! With regards to C*unty using Nike...as far as I am aware they simply buy-in Nike shirts and badge them up, there's no shirt deal and they have to take designs "off the peg" as it were. Errea don't pay us to wear their shirts, but I believe they do operate a credits system, so the more we sell the less we have to pay towards team strips (or something like that)...it may well be that we sell enough to offset the cost, but wouldn't know for sure.

Just increases the likelihood of more matches being moved for TV.

Can't edit the original any more, but Police now say that "a man" has been charged with Breach of the Peace and will appear in court tomorrow (Mon) so I suppose we should now strictly refer to what 4300 people ALLEGEDLY saw! I wonder if he can use the defence of 4300 people walking in on him whilst he was getting changed?

Not such a bad season....Killie Pie & Jelly and Ice Cream!!!

Have moved this over to the main forum so people are more likely to see it. I was actually provided with the info on Friday but hadn't had a chance to post it. Details on hospitality packages etc to follow in due course.

The Supporters Trust used to have tickets, but the club increased their own direct activity in these areas and it was felt we no longer needed to continue doing what we were doing and the money we were spending purchasing the season tickets could be redirected into other things. As far as I am aware there's no hard and fast rules on who can get tickets and who can't...but obviously their will be criteria in regards to groups of kids being suitably supervised by accompanying adults etc. We now direct any enquiries we get to the club themselves and have had no negative feedback from any of the groups we used to assist in the past who now deal with the club for getting tickets.

ICT aren't entitled to anyone's support or custom and the worst thing we can do (on any front, be it fans or those running the club) is take any of it for granted or automatically assume that it will all just magically improve.

Rules on this were changed. If Rangers get booted then bottom team still gets relegated and 2 teams come up instead. Facing a tribunal for constructive dismissal would end up costing them more then simply paying him off.

Can only assume that Dunfermline think he was not getting the best out of the squad he has. I'm also assuming that they think someone already on the books will step up and do a better job. After all only last month they could not afford to pay full wages on time and they will now have to pay off this manager.....where would they find funds to employ a new one?

I wonder if they can be deducted another 10 points for bringing the game into disrepute by screwing up the (not) going into administration process? Also have to wonder if there will be any backlash from actions taken with "administrative powers" when those powers never actually existed!!! You know it's bad when you feck up fecking up...lol

Thing is though Charles, there's nothing (as I understand it) which allows the plan put forward for 31st March to be changed automatically if the Stadium is ready (which I believe it will be). The SPL will not accept a "Our ground will be ready on time so we'll use it" proposal, even as a Plan B. This means that C*unty have to submit their plans on the basis of a groundshare, and once work is complete ask for special dispensation to change the plan to starting the season at their own place...even if that is before the start of the season. In fact the agreement between ICT & C*unty will be for a full season sharing as there's no automatic rule that allows a return half way through the season. ICT suffered as a result of these rules....we were told that even if our new stands had been ready in time for the start of the season we would still face sharing with Aberdeen because that was our registered stadium for the season in question. It was only by special dispensation (and agreement with Aberdeen to cancel the contract) that we were allowed to return half way through the season. It's a ridiculous situation and one where you would hope that common sense prevails....but this is the SPL, a league which talks about doing stuff for the good of the game, but has done little to back that up with actions. If their track record is anything to go by then we should expect a course of action which flies in the face of sensible thinking/behaviour.

Makes sense to have a Plan B and although (on the surface) it would appear financially beneficial to ICT to force a half season ground share I would hope that if ground share was needed then we would back any proposal to allow them to return home as and when their own ground was ready.

Why do we have an U-19 squad of 16 year olds? Where are all of the 18,19 year olds in Inverness? There must be some out there, or are they all with County. I'm not sure what the actual ages of the lads are, but I do know that ICT have (for as long as I can remember) "suffered" from a situation whereby we play lads above their age group. As far as I can tell there's two main reasons for that at the moment. The first being that we had to trim the U19's back to practically zero when we were relegated so lost a group. The second being that far too many are lost to other clubs who can offer more money etc. Neither of those things is the fault of those involved with and/or running the U19's....it's just the way it is at present. On the plus side it does allow the club more time to look at players playing as a unit....if players are getting 3 years together at U19 level, doing well and move up to first team then it should help hasten the transition period involved with settling into the first team squad.

Struggling to find the words...one of the nicest, most genuine blokes I had the pleasure of knowing. His family are true credit to a man that will be sadly missed and my thoughts are with them.

The other point to be made on that is that there's now way to show that anyone coming new into athletics (or any other sport) has used performance enhancing drugs prior to that point. To follow on from the argument that people like Dwain Chambers may possibly still be gaining an advantage from such things after the ban period, would it not be fair to suggest that all athletes should undertake a "quarantine" period before being allowed to compete? I was also looking at some of the info on the BOA lifetime ban rules and noted that it only applies to those who have been given a ban of more than 6 months for drug use...so they are clearly not of the opinion that all drug cheats are equal or should be treated equally. Also interesting to note that in October last year, the IOC had their ruling, that anyone banned for more than 6 months could not compete at the next Olympic Games, deemed unenforceable by the Court of Arbitration for Sport and a ban on LaShawn Merritt competing in London was lifted.

The only stats that count are the ones that appear at the end of the season. That's not to say it's not interesting to look at such things, but with so many contributing factors...factors that change season on season...it's impossible to do a true comparison and draw much by way of meaningful information from attempting to do so.