CaleyD

The original purpose of the A, B & C shares was for the appointment of Directors and they have never held a full voting right in any other business of the company...although holders are entitled to attend and speak at any AGM/EGM. Holders of A Shares (Caledonian Football Club) could, until 30 June 98, appoint 5 Directors Holders of B Shares (Inverness Thistle Football Club) could, until 30 June 98, appoint 3 Directors Holders of C Shares (Inverness & Nairn Enterprise) could, until 30 June 2002, appoint 3 Directors. Under the current Articles and Memorandums these shares currently have no "power" to do anything and are effectively worthless....although the holders are still entitled to attend and speak at any AGM/EGM.

Don't think it was ever reported to them.....seemed more like it was just all hot air to me.

Will you be allowed to help out, if the request goes out for snow clearers? I think it was perfectly clear from the official statement issued via the Courier that I am only welcome at the stadium as a paying punter....there's no way I'll be paying to help clear the pitch.

Bet he's regretting the "Game will definitely be on" comment after waking up to the snow this morning

Stripes just make me look fat!!! Always thought we were missing a trick by not offering "retro" shirts based on the old Thistle and Caledonian designs. I know some people think it digs up old feelings and all that, but surely enough water has passed under the bridge and we should be doing more to recognise our roots and keep the newer generations in touch with where the club came from.

I can't see too many people keen to knock the door down to invest after witnessing the way Alan Savage was treated...can you?

Charles, I'm still at a loss as to what conspiracy theory you think I was/am trying to pedal in respect to events on Saturday. I also find it rather ironic that you warn me about distorting the facts when that is exactly what you did/are doing by partially/selectively quoting me to try and support your claims that I am pedalling a conspiracy. You seem to have fallen into line with the thoughts of certain people at the club that I go out of my way to find fault with them. Apart from the fact that there's no need to go looking for fault as they have a habit of landing at your feet on a disturbingly regular basis, I do give credit where I think it is due and have gone to bat for the club on many things....even to the extent of having them change stance mid way through an issue and leaving me looking like a tw@t because I have supported them. If you wish to disagree with me, Charles, then that's fine, but give it up with the goading and weak attempts at character assassination....aside from anything else, your crap at it.

Is that a fact LG? If so, that is a ridiculous decision by the club. We were in a relegation fight every season we spent in the the SPL and I find it hard to believe the board wouldn't have taken this into consideration. I couldn't produce the paperwork, but it is certainly a widely held belief that this is/was the case.

Sorry to deprive you of another conspiracy theory opportunity Donald but if what I wrote at around 2:30 on Saturday hadn't already made these questions irrelevant then I can only refer you to Scotty's impeccably accurate account a few posts above this one. The only detail of that which I cannot personally verify is what was said by Chic or by anyone else on Sportsound that afternoon since at the time, having spent much of the morning at the "scene of the crime" (maybe I should withdraw that since it will only encourage Donald :P ) I was shopping and lunching in Morrisons. I have on the other hand heard reliable accounts of what was said and much of it does not appear to correlate with what I saw at the scene. At this point I don't think I want to say too much more about what has become a live and running issue. Another conspiracy theory? First off, I wasn't trying to create any conspiracy theory, merely pointing out that we had more questions than answers (at that time). If you had read, and quoted, my post in full instead of picking and piecing like a scummy tabloid journalist then that would be abundantly clear. You also posted at 2:30 on Saturday that no earlier inspection had been done, yet the Courier reports today say that it was and the decision was made to leave it 2 hours to see if conditions improved, does that not place questions on the credibility of your sources? At no point have I blamed ICT for the postponement of the game...quite the opposite if you had cared to include my final paragraph in your quote. I have no idea what your ongoing motivations are for trying to belittle and undermine my thoughts and opinions on just about everything, but it is getting rather tiresome. I sometimes wonder if my belief that you are more of a free thinking and intelligent individual are a bit wide of the mark.

Thanks Charles....was a definitely a distant recollection so wouldn't surprise me if it were over 10 years ago :025:

Someone may be able to correct me if I am wrong, but do ICT not have pitch covers? I seem to recall reading/hearing about us loaning them to C*unty in the distant past when we were away and they were at home, but I can't find anything to confirm or deny that.

Article is no longer on the BBC Website for some reason....but I had saved information from it and it read as follows.

QotS were carrying a couple of injured players....but not so much that I would have thought they would want all this hassle.

What about the other half of this? The case that is due to be heard by the courts in 10 days time? Whilst everyone seems to be concentrating on the "Who instigated the transfer" question, the fact the club are (allegedly) still due Marius half of his signing on fee seems to have been ignored.

The who's right and who's wrong is old ground, covered many times before, but at least we are being told up front what the clubs intentions are....whether we agree with them or not. What concerns me is that we'll already have spent a small fortune on legal fees getting to where we are now, and we're going to add to those and now throw a CAS fee on top of that (Somewhere in the region of ?20k just to lodge the appeal I believe). Our defence seems to hang on the one point...."Who instigated the transfer?" I find it fairly ludicrous that we are trying to claim it was the player, especially as a club director and major shareholder were both talking to the press about how we couldn't afford to keep the guy, and then about how we were happy with the deal we had done and openly acknowledging that we had fees to settle from the transfer monies. The financial cost of losing is unthinkable, as is the damage that will be done to the clubs name and (already failing) reputation. Can't help but feel this is more about a couple of people trying to save face as opposed to being for the clubs benefit....not that it really matters, because either way we are the ones that will be paying for it.

There's two things that niggle about this. First one is why the pitch wasn't inspected earlier, and if it was, why the decision wasn't made then. Second one is that as the QotS fans would have been most of the way up the road by the time the decision was made, then might it have been acceptable to delay the final decision another hour on the advice of the groundsman who, let's face it, is best placed to know the likelihood of it being thawed in time for kick off? What can't be established from the verifiable information at hand is whether or not ICT requested an earlier inspection and if so why it never happened, whether their was an earlier inspection and no decision was made or if it's all just one big screw up. One thing I do find strange is the fact that QotS were (allegedly) not overly upset by the call off and had they been keener to get the game played then it's possible the Ref would have given the pitch another hour before making his final call.

I can sense Scotty reaching for his spreadsheet as we speak

This threadis a prime example of the BIGGEST issue that exists with ICT at the moment....communication between club and fans. The club have been caught out or shown to have been very economical with the truth on so many occasions over the past few years that it's little wonder that people are in the habit of questioning and doubting everything that they do and say....what's more, they tend to go looking for information from other sources as we either get none from the club, they are very slow to communicate or the little info we do get is so heavily spun it only assists in raising more questions. Even those who have been in the position to get information straight from the horses mouth have been made to look stupid on more than a few occasions because they've gone to bat for the club on an issue believing what they have been told and then finding that they perhaps weren't given the whole story. You'll get no argument from me that forums such as CTO are an ideal breeding ground for conspiracy and Chinese whispers....but it doesn't have to be like that and if the club would just get back to the way things were 6 or 7 years ago when they did pro-actively talk TO fans then more of the talk on the forum would be about the game as opposed to those running the game. We'd still have issues, but it's better to be informed on those issues as opposed to not knowing what on earth is going on and wasting our time fighting for answers instead of doing what we would all rather be doing and diverting energy to finding and helping with solutions. Fans may not be the biggest financial contributor to clubs in this day and age, but they are still the most valuable resource any club has (they are the club) and ICT need to learn, and learn fast, how to embrace and fully utilise that resource.

That's fortunate because I don't think they do partial ownership deals on shirts.

A quick google search shows that Bristol Rovers raffled this seasons Shirt Sponsorship....what was interesting in that is the fact that first out of the hat got sponsorship of the Home Shirt and second out of the hat got sponsorship of the Away Shirt. Perhaps giving people two bites at the cherry would help increase interest.....assuming it's acceptable for clubs to have two shirt sponsors in Scotland.

If they are struggling to find a new sponsor then they should raffle it. ?1000 a ticket....winner gets shirt sponsorship for a season and they could give away 5 runners up prizes of matchday sponsors package and maybe another 5 matchball sponsorship packages or something. 100 tickets would bring in ?100,000...which is about all we could expect for sponsorship at Div 1 level. I think any business owner with an interest/support of ICT would be willing to take a punt at ?1000 for the chance of being shirt sponsor.....in fact, I might even be tempted as just a fan with a bit of spare cash for the chance to have my name on there for a season. Smaller companies might buy one ticket and larger companies could be persuaded to chip in for more than one ticket.

I believe the Errea contract was extended by 3 years at the start of this season.

Try it with the ROK logo :D

As I said elsewhere.....as our U19's have been all but scrapped, and with no apparent inclination to add too or change that then it's going to be very difficult for these younger lads to break through unless we have a Manager willing to take the plunge and introduce them to the first team squad as 16/17 year olds. It's not ideal, but if we don't give them the chance to progress then you can be sure other teams out there will and we'll never know if they were good enough to make the transition to first team football with ICT. Not saying these lads should be going straight into the starting line-up, but get them secured on first team contracts and allow them access to full time training, either with us or out on loan somewhere. By doing it that way then it will soon become apparent whether or not they have what it takes to make the step up and the club can decide whether they want to invest in them longer term or not.

Maybe Roscoe23 only thought he heard one of the C*unty Coaches say Duff was joining them.