Charles Bannerman

11 minutes ago, Laurence said:

 When I have longer than 5 seconds , (incidentally it took George Jones of Bury less than 5 seconds to score against Notts County in the F A cup )  . I digress

I will delve further into my complete history of British football  to see when next a local team appeared in the Scottish cup rounds proper

Was  the Bon Accord club ( defeated 35.0 by Arbroath  )  An Highland league club or was it the forerunner of Aberdeen ?

 

Thanks to Charles for his input  most appreciated

Laurence... for a very long time before the Scottish Cup was made "all in" a few years ago, Highland League sides had to qualify for it through the Qualifying Cup. For a time this was a national competition (which, off the top of my head, I think Inverness Citadel won in the 1930s) and then became North and South, with the late four in each progressing. Though this, Inverness clubs often qualified for the Scottish Cup and frequently - especially between around 1984 and 1992 - did very well.

By the way, the Arbroath v Bon Accord score in 1885 was 36-0.

1 hour ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

The Highland League was formed in 1893. In addition to Thistle and Caley, Clach and Forres were founder members who are still playing.

The other founder members were the long defunct Citadel, Union and the Cameron Highlanders - all also Inverness teams. Thistle were the inaugural champions.

I believe that a team called Ross County also started, but disappeared after a few weeks, to be re-formed in 1929.

I also believe that the only club ever to have scored "nul points" is Elgin City.

1 hour ago, Caman said:

I apologise for some light hearted banter. 

There is only one thing that's worse than hubris...... misplaced hubris laced with irony.

8 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

Given our 'West Stand', I honestly think you should stop throwing stones from our glass house.

A wise and measured response to a comment straight out of the "Pride of the Highlands" and "Always in our shadow" stable.

19 minutes ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Aye, that Martin Luther, just a trouble-maker.    If it wasn't for him, then the Highlands would today be able to support two top-flight football teams.

I'm no more a historian than Charles, but I thought that the Reformation went fairly smoothly in Scotland, with Presbyterianism gaining the upper hand quite quickly. It was the influx of Irish Catholic immigrants into Glasgow about 300 years later which kicked off the sectarianism that we still have today. Rangers and Celtic were formed in the midst of this, at a time when Glasgow was by far the most populous and powerful city in Scotland - the "second city of the British Empire" - so it's hardly a surprise that they came to dominate the scene.

It's quite clear that these Protestant and Catholic communities can no more peacefully coexist in West Central Scotland than they can in Northern Ireland. Without going into historical detail, I would find it difficult to describe 60 years of Jacobite rebellions as the Reformation going "fairly smoothly". Then, after that, you have the continuing marginalisation of the Highlands by the central belt which, in football terms, left the Highlands outwith the SFL until 1994, hence adding in all the disadvantages of a very belated start.

1 hour ago, Stirling Observer said:

What we need is for the MSM to stop filling their shows with ex old firm players who live round the corner who peddle the same myths about how important and great the old firm are.

Once again you put your finger on an unfortunate symptom of the fundamental problem - which is the Old Firm. They are of such a size and have become established/ imposed themselves on Scottish society to such an extent that they also have the media running after them - which in turn only compounds the problem. Some of the toe-curling sycophancy I've seen towards OF managers at post-match media gatherings beggars belief.

It all keeps coming back to that root cause of Scotland's failure, after 500 years, to come to terms with the Reformation. This has led to the continuation of rival religious groupings which have in turn adopted two football clubs as their focal points. The resulting clout these clubs receive has made them magnets also for much of the rest of the population Aided and abetted in addition by the media and the football governing bodies giving them what they want, this leaves scant pickings for the rest of the clubs - especially in economically marginal areas like the Highlands which have been attempting to sustain two upper flight clubs in a situation loaded against that.

In fact, if you look at the attendance figures alone, last season the Old Firm accounted for 62% of the total Premiership gate while the two Highland clubs had just 4.7%.

If, even adding in the lower leagues, just two clubs are accounting for such a disproportionate amount of Scottish football's turnover, then that really doesn't leave much for the rest

40 minutes ago, Stirling Observer said:

Just ruined your own arguement. Apparently inner moray firth can't cope with 2 professional clubs. Currently Dundee, it was Edinburgh. What next, what's the point, let's just leave it to Celtic and the new team from Glasgow?

Regrettably, your pay-off line there is the key to the entire scenario. Celtic and "the new team from Glasgow" are hoovering up so much of Scotland's football cash that precious little is left for the rest, and Celtic's "European munificence" is really only p!ssing into the wind in return.

This two club hegemony further marginalises already marginal areas like the Highlands. Hence ICT, despite considerable financial assistance over the years, has passed the limit of punching above its weight while County, despite what's very likely a much greater level of subsidy, are now also finding their Premiership future in severe jeopardy.

3 hours ago, Polo Chick said:

Having watched Sportscene last night i think County will avoid the drop by the skin of their teeth its looking more likely Dundee will drop down their defending on saturday was terrible Meekings in particular had an awful game and they did just avoid the drop last year beacause they did what  we did not they changed the manager 

So what now? Re-name this thread "Dundee Derbies Next Season"??

There's actually a serious message here - if Dundee is not that far from having no teams in the Premiership, what price the inner Moray Firth? Edinburgh didn't cover itself in glory fairly recently either. 

I must say that my attitude to "glory hunters" has softened a bit. Even as recently as the 2015 Cup Final, I had a bit of an ambivalent attitude to the unprecedented presence of around 15,000 in the Inverness end - glad to see that level of backing for the club, but also a bit resentful at people turning up only for this extra helping of self-gratification.

Now, I tend more to believe that everyone is free to buy into attending matches at whatever level their interest determines.

With ICT there will maybe be a few dozen who attend every game, home and away; a few hundred who never miss a home game; a couple of thousand season ticket holders who attend most home games; a few thousand attending half a dozen or more games.... up to 15,000 for a Scottish Cup final. Nobody in a "more frequent" category really has the right to play the Self Righteous card and criticise less frequent attenders.

Then there's the large majority of the population of Inverness who have no interest at all in watching ICT, many, possibly even most, of these with no interest in football at all.

Where the final of a national cup for lower league sides (that's a definition, not a dismissive term) comes on that spectrum remains to be seen.

3 hours ago, caleyboy said:

 

the unfortunate situation in football is that is normally always  "other peoples" money that keeps clubs afloat. it's just that we don't seem to spend it very well or manage to attract sufficient income. 

Caleyboy, I sometimes wonder if you have more agendas than an entire volume of Highland Council Minutes??

I'm not sure that the numbers totally support that conspiracy theory, given that the Muirfield Mills interest alone already outnumbers the Mcgil/Savco holding by about 3:2. But even if this were the case, DFS now has about 300,000 shares - approx 8% (I'm not rigorously checking numbers at this time of night) while MM control about 1.3M (ballpark 35%) and Mcgil/Savco has around 900,000 (knocking on 25%). Then, in a pretty splintered situation, you have the Supporters'  Society we're not sure if the club actually has or not, holding (or perhaps not holding?) 10% of voting rights - more than DFS who is now around the 6th biggest shareholder. However that 10%, the 5th biggest clout, is in a state of total uncertainty.

On the other hand if it's felt that the club would be better off without that £250K.......

57 minutes ago, Huisdean said:

While not a direct answer to your question Charles, I do think we need to start rearing more of our own players and give them a chance. This is something we have never truly done, maybe the players haven't been good enough although I personally think not all of them got the chances they deserved. Rearing our own players and then, hopefully selling them on for a profit, has to be part of the way forward for us.

Don't worry about the indirect answer, Huisdean, because you raise a very valid issue.

1 hour ago, Caman said:

I have played shinty on many a boggy and ploughed field. Balmacara probably the worst. Still bagged a hat trick there though. But then that's a real man's game. 

Ironically enough, Balmacara (the "new Balmacara", I think) was the most playable pitch in shinty last Saturday and hosted the only game that went ahead.

26 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

I think you'll find the builder was instrumental in this as he didn't like the people on the old members club board and he was desperate to reduce the voting rights to 10%

A further straight question - if you were on the current board, what would your attitude have been to accepting the £250,000 personal donation from "the builder" which is part of the £450,000 received in recent months to keep the club afloat?

5 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

imo i think it's a bluddy miracle we are still here after 25 years with no money and a mass of blazers indulging in a business they know/knew eff all about. maybe the championship is where we are destined to be and should be happy we are still full time.

Straight question - what would your alternative strategy have been to raise the £6M of other people's money that's been needed to get the club to where it's been over the last 25 years.

I should perhaps instead have said - this HAS ALREADY DEVELOPED into the mother of all fixtures backlogs!

This could be developing into the mother of all fixtures backlogs!

3 hours ago, old caley girl said:

I may be being slow here Charles but can you explain this further? 

Apologies, OCG, I am probably a victim of my own attempt not to be too abrasive. A touch of the Sir Humphrys, perhaps.

Essentially what I'm saying is that I wish some people would accept that, thanks to pretty good governance, this club has led a charmed life for years. It's therefore not all that helpful trying to apportion blame when the realities of a fundamentally loss-making operation can no longer be kept at bay.

I would be even more reluctant to press the nuclear button with the suggestion that if people want a superior product then they should be prepared to pay more for it (as happens in any other line of business) instead of constantly looking round for other people to subsidise their activities.

2 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

OK, I will ask the obvious question.  What do you think they should do?

I am sure that they will welcome constructive suggestions.

Good question. Some folks don't seem to understand that the club's most notable feature over time is what it has done in the face of adverse circumstances. However the most prominent comments seem to come when things depart from the charmed life that largely good governance has created because something short of perfection has disrupted this otherwise privileged existence. Most complaints seem to arise when a relatively rare error has meant that a fundamentally loss making lifestyle can no longer be cobbled together.

41 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

Really, Charles....you're going with the argumentum ad hominem approach?

No, I'm simply putting your CTO comments - current and historical - into a realistic context. This in particular may help forum users, especially more recently joined ones, to evaluate them - which I think is very appropriate and necessary.

So, to provide a little more detail than in my previous post.... for an extended period on here some years ago, you waged a constant campaign of criticism and undermining of the stewardship of this club, prominent within which was the constant highlighting of any and every difficulty - real and imaginary - of which you could conceive.

Then, by a process which has never been entirely clear and despite your having seriously antagonised those in charge at the time, you suddenly became part of the "establishment" as a "volunteer". Equally suddenly, more or less overnight indeed, the tone of your CTO posts switched from arch-antagonist to those of an arch-apologist for an administration which could suddenly do no wrong. In consequence, some would argue that there was a great deal of "credibility" indeed in the phrase "e*se-licking happy clapper", which was IHE's penetrating observation on this new status. Alongside this ran considerable uncertainty, reflecting a potential conflict of interest, as to whether some "CaleyD" posts were personal observations or being offered in your capacity as a club functionary on behalf of the club.

Meanwhile, and coinciding remarkably with you ceasing to hold any position within the club, the "worm has turned" again, the happy clapping has stopped and board members once more have to use toilet paper in considerable quantities. This is a process which is more than evident from the stark contrast between your more recent, suddenly once again negative posts, and your earlier, persistent assurances that the set-up which led to over-resourced relegation and financial crisis, was infallible.

I trust this puts into useful context a wide variety of "CaleyD" posts over an extended period of time.

10 hours ago, Scarlet Pimple said:

Please have a look at how Caley D sets out his thoughts. Always concise, non- critical of others, and generally very factual and balanced. And he doesn't wear  Viking hat so  maybe the Lord hath blessed  his cranium.. 

Cheers Charlie. Off you go, back to chat and chirping.

Oh well, Scarlet, as long as you are content to reconcile that with the historical sequence of:- a constant tide of condemnation prior to an apparent visit to Damascus, upon which Inverness Caledonian Thistle suddenly achieved a period of administrative perfection up to and including over-resourced relegation.... before reverting to consistent mismanagement on more recent regime change.

22 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

Any adjustments that were needed for the 2015/16 period would have been shown in the 2016/17 papers issued at the last AGM.  It's part of the reason accounts show the previous years figures....so that ones a non starter.

You, yourself, have made the point on many occasions that we have no clue as to what players are being paid.  Are you now in possession of information on the current squad which changes that?  The club had players, allegedly, on wages of less than £250 whilst we were in the Premiership....so, even if true, that would be nothing new.

Robbo claims that £1.2 Million* (I think that's what it had grown to the last time he mentioned it) was cut from the playing budget.  The chairman claimed that the impact on the club's income from relegation would be £1.2 Million.  If both those figures are to be believed then they cancel out.  If you take the loss from last year at face value....even though the Chairman has confirmed that it will reduce as a result of things I mentioned previously....then the loans (converted to shares) from earlier in the season cancel out the need for that this financial year.  Why then, and again this is from the Chairman's mouth, do we need further substantial investment this season?

The maths don't stack up.

It also doesn't get away from the fact that the Chairman told everyone from day one that they had a plan that would remove the need for these gifts....and we've seen not a single iota of evidence to back up that this is happening or is likely to happen.  They either lied....and I don't think they have lied in this instance....or they didn't know what they were getting in to and are failing, badly.

*Robbo also claimed that the clubs income from gate receipts was down by £1.7 Million (you were in the press conference that day Charles), a number that doesn't match with the clubs claimed total loss of income, let alone one part of it....and also a figure I would peg at being about what the clubs total income from tickets (walk up and season tickets) would have been while we were in the premiership.  Since we're not letting everyone in for free, then I suspect it's an inaccurate claim.

What I am saying is that more or less every year things applying to it will drop off the ends of the accounts into the next year, so a lot of these factors are self-cancelling in whole or in part. The £250 a week was quoted by the manager at the AGM in respect of, I think, Coll Donaldson. We are, of course, talking about first team wages here. The rest are a fraction and we don't want to muddy the water.

We do seem to be making an incredible meal of the fairly obvious - that the new board have come in, realised the cash that had been splashed in the past (and not to any great effect) and are doing their best to reduce expenditure as well as increase earned revenue streams. This would also appear to be a reasonable approximation to what Kingsmills has also been saying, although he is free to contradict me if it's not.

As an aside, I wonder what a complete outsider would make of a chronological list of all your CTO posts which come to some judgement on how well the club's affairs are being run at any particular time? 

5 minutes ago, Kingsmills said:

The quarter of a million pound 'hole' in terms annual finances pertains when we are in the top tier with a number of games with two or three thousand away fans, a bigger home support, higher ticket prices, greater commercial income and much larger TV revenue.

The inbuilt deficit for a mediocre season in the Championship is more like a million pounds. In my view the current board are doing a reasonable job in very challenging circumstances.

In my opinion the use of professional consultants rather than enthusiastic amateurs in certain areas is a step in the right direction and will pay dividends in years to come.

It also looks as if Caley D may have reverted to his previous status following his "e*se-licking happy clapper" period. 

1 hour ago, CaleyD said:

 after adjustments which will be required during this financial year, the loss from last year will show as being significantly lower than the £422k shown.  By my reckoning, it will reduce to somewhere very close to break even by the time you factor in the european money and rent write offs etc which were all earned/agreed during the last financial period.

 The £450k already given is in addition to operational income for the current accounting period and there's strong rumours that a similar amount is required on top of that to see us through the season. 

I don't think it really matters when a rent write-off is agreed. It's surely when it's actually written off that it disappears from the accounts and this process is only being finalised now. Items "missing" the accounts deadline is an annual factor, so these 2016-17 accounts may well also have benefited from something similar at the start of the accounting period. In terms of cost cutting, the most excessive wages have been steadily been getting removed from the player pool and, as we were told at the AGM, wages have dropped to as little as £250 a week. Also, if all that much has been bounced forward to 2017-18, then that will presumably reduce the need for whatever subsidy will be required in the current season - albeit a season of reduced Championship income streams.

I suspect that what we are again effectively talking about here is that the inner Moray Firth isn't capable of sustaining two upper league football clubs and hence two player pools being paid far more than can sensibly be justified in relation to their ability to generate earned income.