CaleyD

Whether you're a seller or a buyer, join us for the highly popular Ness Boot Sale at the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium. BUYERS : FREE PARKING in the North Car Park (Nearest the bridge) SELLERS : PRICES AS FOLLOWS.... £10 per car £15 for large vans and cars with trailers (double-size space allocated) Gates Open 8:00am. No need to book, just turn up and pay on entry. Commercial Traders welcome by prior arrangement (£25) - phone 01463 222880 All proceeds go to the registered charity Inverness Caledonian Thistle Community Development, (SC 036102) which promotes sport in the local community.

I've had a response in relation to the EGM dated 18th April 2018 as follows... Following the objection the meeting is unable to proceed as planned on the 18th and will be rescheduled. We are continuing to work with Supporters Direct and have a board meeting on Thursday so we will respond fully following the meeting. I thought it might be useful to let people know ?

These are my personal comments. I've stated this before....but this is not, and should not be or become, a witch hunt. There are people on the CJT board who have skill sets, knowledge and energy which are of value to the society. The call for everyone to step down and a new election is not to get rid of all these people, it's to ensure that everyone on the board is properly elected/appointed and the members get a rightful say in who they want to stay/go/add. Only once that has been done can they look to dealing with any other matters which are there; or may arise as things are brought back on track.

Have heard many people in the game (who are far more knowledgeable and better qualified to comment than me) state that they believe Polworth's all round ability is better than that of Ryan Christie.....it's just that, for whatever reason, we've only ever got glimpses of his full potential.

It's definitely possible....you've just agreed to that. It's the likelihood that's in question. Not sure I'd be wagering the outcome one way or the other....after all, this is the Caley Jags we're talking about!!

An email was received, from CJT, by those who requested the SGM stating that the request was "quite complex to administer within our current rules" and, as such "This is making the request for a meeting within 28 days from the date of the letter impossible to achieve." This appears to be based on advice from Supporters Direct (umbrella organisation), but it would seem that advice has been provided without a full understanding of the situation. Whilst it would be easy to assume, it's not entirely clear from that whether or not the meeting listed in the OP has been cancelled and confirmation of that has been requested. There was also a request from CJT for a meeting with representatives of those who put their names to the SGM request. This has been welcomed on the basis that it also include a representative from Supporters Direct (to advise, mediate & bare witness) and without prejudice to the members rights to now call the already requested SGM themselves should they deem it necessary. A response is also awaited on that matter.

Bankrupt ?

I think if we win all our games, then we are guaranteed a play-off spot? Just do that and we don't have to worry about other team's results. Simples!

?

What type of spring did they win?

Whilst the society has to be registered with companies house, details on filings etc are held on the mutuals register with the FCA at https://mutuals.fsa.gov.uk/SocietyDetails.aspx?Number=2665&Suffix=RS

Fit right in, then ?

Some things are timeless.

He would certainly add another brick to the wall.

I'm typing this on behalf of nobody but myself. The priority in all this is to get an EGM called in order to ensure that the appointed board is compliant and in a position to deal with everything else and move the society out of the hole it currently finds itself in. How we arrived at this position is immaterial at this time. Ignoring the 14 day notice period is not an option. If you were to crack on with that, then a single objection (which you already have) would render the meeting...and any business transacted at that meeting...unconstitutional. You can't kick start a period of improved governance with a breach of regulations!! That leaves two options.... 1. You further ignore the society rules, do nothing and leave it to the members to call and control the EGM.* 2. You communicate with those who requisitioned the meeting to seek an extension to the 28 days, find a compromise and/or work together to set the date for the EGM. The second option is what would be best for the society....IMO....as it moves things forward in the most timely and cost efficient manner, whilst adhering to the society rules and company law. * I don't want to expand on this as it may come across as me trying to be intimidating but PLEASE, for your own good, look up the implications of not fulfilling your responsibilities as a director of a ltd company.

The following has been sent by email to [email protected] at 10:55am on 5th April 2018 and is presented here as an "open letter" in lieu of us having the means to send it directly to ICT Supporters Society members. FAO the Society Board We note the Special General Meeting notice placed on caleythistleonline.com and make the following observations on behalf of the 37 members who, on the 22nd March 2018, instructed you to call the Special General Meeting. Unless you have made other, earlier, attempts to contact all members with notice of the meeting then you have failed to meet the requirements to provide notice "at least 14 clear days before the date of the meeting" - definition of "clear days" can be found at https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clear+days Unless notices have also been sent to members by one, or more, of the methods laid out in the society's rules, then you have failed to meet the requirements for providing due notice of the meeting. The notice indicates that 3 members have made the request for the meeting. This is a misrepresentation of the instruction you received which was from 37 members in total. As per the letter requesting the SGM, the purpose of the meeting was to be... to vote on the removal of all persons from the Society Board. to hold a fresh election to appoint members to the Society Board in accordance with the society’s rules. Your addition of the words "to resolve" in the notice issued would suggest that the presentation of the matters as delivered to you is somehow up for discussion prior to them being put before the meeting for a vote. This is not the case and the matters are to be presented as delivered in the members request for the meeting. You are entitled to seek discussion of these matters before they are presented to the meeting, but you do not have the authority to make any amendment and/or to place any condition on voting for the matters as detailed in the instruction delivered to you on 22nd March 2018. You lost the right to construct the resolutions for this SGM by refusing to call it of your own accord. Furthermore, the notice does not include any board nomination forms, details on when nominations need to be received, in what form and what procedures will be used to conduct the election; or the Board Membership Policy document, which details what nominees are agreeing to by standing for the board. Nor does it include any proxy information and/or forms. All this information should be laid out in the society's Election Policy document which should be used in conjunction with the society's Standing Orders for General Meetings document. As there is very little time available for you to arrange a new date and to issue the relevant notice and accompanying information, whilst adhering to the timescales of the notice provided on 22nd March 2018, then we would anticipate a speedy reply in resolution to the matters noted above. Regards, David Balfour - John Horne - Donald Johnstone on behalf of the 37 members represented by the notice delivered to you on 22nd March 2018.

In that case....no comment ?

Charles is/was most certainly a member.

In order to hold a meeting on that date, notice would have to have been given to members before midnight last night as "Clear Days" do not include the day notice is given or the day of the event.

I actually like the fact that referees (genuinely) won't spot every incident or get every decision right. IMO, it's the discussion and debate around these things which underpinned the community growth around the sport....before TV ruined it all. It's the inconsistency that bothers me. These are guys (certainly in the UK) who are paid very well....more than the majority of fans and more than many of the players they are officiating over. The fact that some of them are being paid high 3 figure or 4 figure sums per game and are considered "part-time" is ridiculous. At the upper level it should be a full-time profession and they should be brought together during the week to review games/decisions and then agree how situations are treated across the board. The closest they come to that is when they're flown off abroad for a p1ss-up under the guise of conferences and professional development (and that's straight from the horses mouth).

I'm not sure of the logic behind asking inept and inconsistent referees to review the decision of inept and inconsistent referees!! IMO, The biggest problem is not that they do not know the rules and are missing incidents....it's that they aren't applying the rules and are occasionally swayed by external factors when it comes to blowing the whistle (or not). Until you fix that....all the cameras and technology in the world aren't going to change a thing.

I think we should put out a Select XI from our Walking Football and FFIT Fans teams.

I look forward to reading the columnists thoughts on CJT tomorrow ?

So it's somehow CJT's fault that the club aren't doing what they said they would with regards to being open, transparent and more communicative? ? A functioning CJT would be a good vehicle by which to hold them to account...but in the absence of that, someone who had, say, a weekly newspaper column could use that to highlight the situation...especially if they are reliably informed...no?