Charles Bannerman

Sorry to appear awkward but, while the existence of the 450,000 shares is in the public domain, I have to consider the information I have about their ownership as having been given to me in confidence. However it shouldn't be to difficult to work this out by comparing last year's Annual Return of share ownership with this year's, which should be due in the pretty near future.

It really is quite astonishing that this CJT situation has been allowed to get to the state that it has now reached. The ONLY evidence for CJT's existence is subliminal assertions, unsupported by any evidence I have seen, that there is a "board". So if this board does exist, why is it doing nothing, why has it been doing nothing for months if not years, and why does it continue to conceal itself behind a wall of stubborn silence? Why, at one of the club's most critical and fragile periods in almost 20 years, is this alleged board, which claims to represent the supporters, not lifting a finger to assist the club through these very difficult times? The concern of ever more ICT supporters that I speak to is that the sole priority of this alleged board is to sit on top of the 10% voting rights which are the club's literal birthright and which are a legacy to all supporters. What is needed is a publicly active and working supporters' organisation guided by an equally active and working board - not some kind of a mirage whose existence or otherwise could by now very comfortably become the subject of an examination question for a degree in Philosophy..... or a dramatic farce.

CJT's 10% voting rights are actually only slightly less than those attached to the 450,000 shares, although these shares have been tken up by more than a single party.

I'm going to indulge in a bit of mutual back scratching here and also commend the above by DD! Football's wage structure and expectations make it very difficult indeed for a large number of clubs to balance their earnings and their expenditure. In the case of the two Highland clubs, the ICT situation is as already described. Twelve years in the Premiership, ending in a very precarious financial situation, have only been achieved as a result of being propped up by a ballpark £6.5 million of other people's money - mainly Tullochs'. In the case of Ross County, the actual numbers are a lot less accessible but it's very clear that their twice yearly signing spree and a lot more have depended critically on subsidy by Roy MacGregor and very probably others. I would be a bit surprised if the total over the years is any less than the approximate figure quoted for ICT. The bottom line is that the Inner Moray Firth isn't capable of sustaining two upper tier SPFL clubs with both (or maybe even just one of them) standing on their own two feet. However, although I believe that the Inverness/ Easter Ross population conglomerate is becoming less polarised due to incomers, there is no way that this two club arrangement is going to change. Indeed I'm sure the SFL didn't envisage the progress made by BOTH the neighbouring clubs they elected in 1994 to the extent that they both need the current level of rnourishment from limited local sources. That progress and growth has created an unsustainable and very precarious situation whereby a twitch on the ICT tightrope or the withdrawal of Roy MacGregor could precipitate a collapse which would see much of what has been achieved flushed unceremoniously down Johndo's aquifer.

An excellent illustration, IHE. The tightrope is there as described, and the safety net corresponds to Tullochs who, once you subtract rent paid for the stadium until now, have been club benefactors to the tune of around £3.5M net of that. Had that safety net not been rushed into place in the early noughties, the club would very probably have disappeared into that whirlpool long since.

The shareholders' agreement to the issue of up to around 1 million extra shares was obtained at the EGM at the end of July. It was indicated at that time that a significant number of them were spoken for and the allotment of the 450,000 was recorded by Companies House a few days ago.

It's not really rocket science, and the analogy I used yesterday is still probably the best inasmuch as a tightrope walker survives until there's even a modest disruption - and the effect of that is then catastrophic. Under Charlie Christie in 2006-7, I'm led to believe that there was a very strict, board-imposed wage limit of £650pw. Combined with crowds a bit higher than latterly in the Premiership because this was still a relative novelty, and probably higher TV money as well, the club just about muddled along in the lower half of the table. When you get to the Terry Butcher era, well Terry's assertiveness seems to have managed to wheedle a bit more out of the board for wages, but on the other hand he at least partly justified that by making good signings, reaching the Top Six, and gaining the corresponding performance payout. But by now we are into the realms of having to depend on windfalls like high performance payments, transfer fees etc, and when these aren't quite enough, the Social Club also needs to be sold. Then enter Yogi who flatters to deceive - to a large extent thanks to the team TB put together. But TB's signings begin to move on, so Yogi needs to take in his own, and there are two problems here - most of them were duds and, worse still, even further over the odds seems to have been paid for them. Latterly the Ryan Christie money, for instance, and anything else available, simply disappears into the black hole Yogi has persuaded the Board to extend in order to recruit the said duds. The club is still, however, hanging on in the Premiership, but by now only by paying way over the odds for players way under the required standard. At this point, the whole thing has become an car crash waiting to happen.... and that car crash is the appointment of Richie Foran. Saddled with a bunch of poor players, lacking the managerial skills to address the situation and allowed by the Board to continue in the job, there's only one place Foran and his team are going - out the door and down a league respectively. By now crowds are also declining so what we have is a relegated club which has allowed all its crown jewels to be blown on an expensive, relegated side. Meanwhile income streams are even lower than before - hence a £422K loss. When you have to put round the begging bowl for £450,000 simply to remain solvent, as has just happened, the current situation is more or less inevitable. As for the Faustian bit, everything was thrown into the black hole in exchange for the last few years of life in the Premiership. The tightrope walker has now fallen from the wire, on which he had for some time enjoyed a charmed life in any case. It would be very wrong to assume that ICT's default position is the SPFL Premiership, where it remained for years courtesy of chickens which have now come home to roost.

I'm not sure about that, Caleyboy. When Tulloch got involved first in 2000, there was a debt of around £2.6M, creating an imminent danger of collapse. Now, any debts will be small but earnings are a major issue. I also know that 450,000 new shares were allotted just the other week in exchange for money donated to keep things going post-relegation. I agree that the fabric of the stadium isn't worth a great deal given its limited use potential. And I remain unsure what the term "investment" means in football. I can't think of many situations where it means anything other than "charitable donation to remove debt and/or to allow expenditure to exceed earnings."

One thing I never seem to hear from the anti-Tulloch squad is what the alternative strategy would have been for disposing of £2.6M of probably fatal debt, producing working capital to build a team to gain promotion to the SPL and providing stands to allow SPL football to be played in Inverness? There seems to be an alarming presumption among some football supporters that it's somebody else's responsibility to owe clubs a living when their expenditure runs away ahead of their capacity to earn income.

Net of rent paid, I would place the value of Tulloch's assistance to ICT at a ballpark £3.5 million - and that's before you allow for the gifting back of the stadium fabric and £730,000 of shares. Then you have to add in millions more given as free gifts, most of it in large £50K+ slices from wealthy individuals over the last couple of decades. But of course, Uncle Roy's millions are still source of contempt and ridicule.......

It has been a problem for years - indeed ever since it was installed. But just look at the shape and symmetry of the problem areas and you relly do have to wonder if this is the latest difficulty this particular source of pitch disruption has caused.

Over these 24 years, the club has - probably in two separate phases, 1995-2000 and around 2013-1017 - spent money that it didn't in any realistic sense have in order to pay players more than the club could afford - and more than they were worth in real market terms. Following the first period, it was obliged to accept massive assistance from Tullochs, which I would struggle to call The Devil but which still, reasonably, accepted ownership of the stadium in exchange for warding off the Administrator or the Receiver with big bucks. During the second phase, the Devil was in the detail of the windfalls that the board depended upon to finance - or indeed fail to finance - well over the top payments to a procession of duds brought in by John Hughes and then Richie Foran. The brutal fact is that Inverness Caledonian Thistle has fallen short by something like £6-7 million over the last 20-odd years to generate earnings to finance what it has paid out to function as it has as a football club. Until recently, thanks to Tullochs (I don't expect many green dots for that, but this is the truth) and a few other five and six figure benefactors, the club has lived a charmed life. However Auld Nick has now changed what he breathes out from Chanel Number 5 to Sulphur Dioxide. The age of Reality has now dawned.

FJ, to be brutally honest, you are the one who needs to ask yourself about reality. The high points you describe were attributable to a perfect storm of favourable breaks (arguably going back to 1993) plus a policy of living from hand to mouth on windfalls which happened to go the club's way which allowed remarkable progress along a tightrope. However, any tightrope walker just has to make the tiniest of errors and he plunges into the abyss. In the case of ICT, these errors were in the areas of financial strategy and managerial appointments and make no mistake about it - the current board have one hell of a situation to rescue. So perhaps we should look on the said Scottish Cup run and the said encounters with Aberdeen and Celtic from a Faustian perspective. Things were indeed sold to the Devil for 24 more years of life and ICT is - literally - in its 25th year.

On the subject of the pitch, the two problem areas are almost identical in size and shape and displaced an exact half-turn from each other. To me, this tends to suggest that the undersoil heating may well have some kind of role here. Do these areas, for instance, correspond to any particular entry or exit point for pipes?

I actually think Caley D answered that line of argument before it was made. Fans who choose not to attend simply boost the TV companies' audiences instead - which is what they are paying for. And once again, it has to be emphasised that Scottish football is hardly a "must see" crowd puller and if push came to shove, the TV companies would simply walk away, leaving the game with nothing.

The difference being that, unlike those of a certain political persuasion, I don't have very many grievances..... insofar as they exist they are genuine and not contrived with a little saltire stamp on them ..... and I don't create them as a vehicle for inciting support for political change. Apart from that..... IT'S PICTLAND'S OIL!

It has always been the same. Just to quote a single instance, go back to 1992 when, at a time when Caledonian's attendances at Telford Street were generally in the 300-500 range, 6000 packed in for the St Johnstone game in the Scottish Cup. The bigger the occasion, the more people turn up - and in 1992, playing St Johnstone in the Scottish Cup was a VERY big occasion.

And what would the effect of that be? I don't think ICT - or indeed too many other Scottish clubs - are involved in games that TV companies are so desperate to show that they would be influenced by a fans' boycott. The more likely outcome would be that the TV company would either not renew the deal or only offer a reduced sum. The reality is that Scottish football is so desperate for cash that it finds itself with little option but to make TV deals which aren't in the best interests of its fans. Part of this problem, alongside players being paid far more than their capacity to generate earnings, is that a disproportionate slice of Scottish football's total "turnover" is being cornered by just two clubs. No disrespect, but ICT fans threatening to boycott matches in protest against TV companies rather reminds me of Stalin's reply when he was told that the Pope wasn't very happy about Soviet repression of Catholics: "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?"

That would be ideal, but for long enough now it's been difficult to reconcile on the one hand claims in the background that everything is in hand with CJT with, on the other hand, the complete lack of evidence to that effect. What we need is a formal, public statement of exactly where this organisation is, whether or not it exists in any practical or legally meaningful way and what the status is of a 10% voting right which legitimately belongs to the supporters and reflects investment of over £1.2 million of the assets of the founding parties, Inverness Thistle FC and Caledonian FC, in the club over 20 years ago. On that particular subject, a 10% stake in the club would currently cost less than £450,000 - well below what the original merger partners invested for what has become that very same 10% voting power. There is a counter argument here, and it's the one I understand was used from within the club to persuade the late Ian Fraser to sell his 300,000+ shares to Sandy Catto for rather less than £1 each (shares which, via Highland Hospice, now reside with Alan Savage and the McGilvray family). That argument was that the club was in such bad nick at the turn of the millennium that the shares were effectively worthless so should be disposed of for much less than their purchase price. I have an idea what the eventual figure was, but am not confident enough of that to state it here. However if you apply the mark down in question to that £1.2M, which is also "pre-meltdown money", you still arrive at a figure which, pro rata, is well in excess of what anybody else has had to pay for their voting rights. In other words, we have this ironic situation that the contribution made by the original founding fathers of this club is worth far less in terms of influence than any other subsequent contribution.

I have a feeling that club chairmen probably get as big a laugh at publicly quoted transfer fees as they do at publicly quoted "candidates" for managerial vacancies.

I think there are at least three sources of faults or weaknesses here. I remain in no doubt that Christie herself has to a large extent been the architect of her own downfall, probably because she skates so close to opponents that she puts herself in danger of either falling or being impeded or fouling someone else. Three consecutive "misfortunes" was beginning to stretch credibility just a bit but when that moved on to six out of six, then surely there must be a root cause to this. Six catastrophes in six events just stretches credibility a bit too far. Then you have to look critically at the nature of the sport, including some of the observations made by DD in the previous post. Clearly the situation is not helped by a scenario which almost creates the temptation to take risks, hence compounding any weaknesses on the part of the competitor. Finally, Team GB management have at least two big questions to answer - why did they allow her to do that car crash of an interview after the 500 which will haunt her for the rest of her career and her life, and why did they allow her even to take to the ice for the third event, the 1000m, when it was clear that her right ankle was in a pretty bad way? The second question there also applies broadly to Radcliffe at the 2004 Athens Olympic marathon, and one of the answers is probably related to our medals-driven funding system. There are huge pressures applied to our various sports to produce medals which are, in effect, bought with Lottery money. This tends to run the show and forces governing body officials into making bizarre decisions in order to protect their future funding. It's not just football that has a very ambiguous relationship with money.

I don't think any of that lot crashed out/DQd six times in as many events at two Olympics and came away with absolutely nothing. Notwithstanding that short track speed skating has a relatively large tumble rate, I think the whole manner in which this catastrophe has unfolded has been incredibly bad.

I'm glad somebody has taken the initiative since this has really become quite an astonishing situation.

One thing the club board could perhaps do is to establish exactly what the situation is with regard to CJT and make a public statement of the outcome principally, as Glover says, for the benefit of the fans whose body this is meant to be. If whoever were previously involved in CJT are unable to respond to the likes of queries by posters on this forum, then I would suggest that it falls to the club board to achieve clarity - better still, progress - in respect of 10% of the Company's voting rights.

She's now saying she'll be back for Beijing in 2022. PLEASE!!...... DON'T!!!!