Charles Bannerman

Beachcomber... just to clarify what I meant.... I have always been convinced that the loss of merger "refuseniks" was very small in relation to the size of crowds which there have been since entering the SFL/SPL. However I am now beginning to wonder if the conflict mainly with Old Firm sympathies since promotion to the SPL has more recently caused a bigger loss of support than the (perhaps) couple of hundred or so in the mid 90s.

I do sometimes wonder how much support Caley Thistle lost when they moved up to the SPL and a number of "fans" were then forced to decide between ICT and another club, mainly one of the Old Firm. For many it was easy enough to have ICT, and before that Thistle or Caley, as their "wee" team and Celtic or Rangers as their "big" team. Then the wee club became a big club and I fear that many did the brainless thing, took the simplistic, glory hunting approach and plumped for one of the Old Firm. I actually find that quite sad. You live and/or come from a particular place and you abandon the team from that place in favour of a club 170 miles away which to a large extent owes its status to the existence of religious intolerance in West Central Scotland. Indeed I have a feeling that the haemorrhage of support for ICT for this reason has been significantly larger than what I remain convinced was only a modest loss due to disapproval of the merger. On which subject, two further observations. I cannot agree with Clacher's assertion that Thistle and Caley "died". They simply merged to create the much more substantial entity which is there today. Also, albeit briefly because I don't really want to open old wounds, the merger was referred to somewhere above as a "takeover". I can't really agree with that. It was accurately stated late in 1993 that Caley were contributing 70% of the assets, 80% of the membership (admittedly after a large and synthetic recruiting drive by both sides of the merger controversy) and 90% of the fundraising capacity. It never was an equal merger and I have always contended that the balance which came out of it was pretty fair.

Do Rangers get credit for the away goal? After all, I believe the game was played in JAFFA which must have really felt like a home tie for them! :021:

SMEE.. a slight excess of Hellmanns and Horlicks there I think. Yes, crowds of 8000 were know in Inverness in days gone by but you're rather nostalgically trying to present that as the rule rather than the exception. Yes, crowds were bigger in these days because of a lack if counter attractions but, in general nowhere near THAT large. RandBCB... even the total Thistle and Caley support was only a fraction of current levels and the modest slice of that which was lost was a tiny price to pay for massive progress.

DBS's video clip in the first post looks just like an average afternoon in Serie A, B or C!

Kingsmills.... Notwithstanding... love it!... what a word.. I really wish it was much more widely used than by the legal profession!

This is a subject on which I prefer to comment sparingly since my means of entry to football is not through the turnstiles. But in reality I'm there to work so will ignore any (grumpy!) response which "moves off at a tangent" so to speak! The economics of football are crazy. The nature of the business is such that your "plant" (the players.... sorry lads!) is only able to work profitably for an hour and a half a fortnight. As a result there is always a struggle to make the books balance and doing so involves accessing other significant income streams outwith the turnstiles. (As a result, in relation to what it costs to produce what people pay to see, seat prices are in effect already heavily subsidised from other sources but I'm not going to take the risk of dwelling on that one.....) However, in order to survive financially in a very marginal situation, clubs have no alternative but to try to maximise income through the gate. This seems fairly fundamental if survival in the SPL is to be sought. Question - do you do that by opting for higher prices and a lower crowd or lower prices and a higher crowd? In economic terms, we are looking here at how price elastic demand for seats at a football match is. It has been assumed in some earlier posts that demand is quite elastic - in other words if you lower your prices, attendances will increase at least in proportion. Would this be the case? Would income be maintained if prices were significantly lowered or would it collapse? Should the board try to find out? Can they afford to take the financial risk? In a short term experiment, how would season ticket holders react to, say, a "pay £10 on the day" experiment for occasional fans? I certainly think that price elasticity of demand is probably rather variable from match to match. But certainly in the case of a Scottish Cup quarter final at home to Celtic, prices could go pretty high before the game failed to sell out. As a result, in this case, the Board, within the framework of what is normal within top Scottish football, is responsible to the club's stakeholders to glean as much income as possible from this opportunity.

Celtic presumably have some kind of say in this too since they are entitled to an equal share of gate receipts. I can't imagine them or any other visiting club in a cup tie, accepting a situation whereby Caley Thistle season ticket holders got preferential rates for a match where there's an equal share of revenues. Indeed I wonder how much input (?) there was from Celtic in the overall "agreement" over the prices?

Rhubarb and bananas Buckett! ... we were on nothing more interesting than an athletics meeting. Wood doesn't grow on trees laddie! (Readers who did not attend Inverness Royal Academy during the 60s or 70s should ignore this!)

Johndo.... do you not mean that you were majorly under the influence for the entire duration of the merger!?

Brand New Poster... NO, NO and thrice NO!!!!! Can we please get this ridiculous myth about the "bad feeling after the merger" affecting crowds killed off once and for all because I am fed up with having to make this post every few months? Please remember that, typically, Thistle and Caley between them in 1993 were pulling in around 600 fans. A majority of these were either happy enough about the merger or, even if they didn't like it, still came along to Caley Thistle games. I would doubt if the number of fans who stayed away exceeded 200 and even some of these have drifted back. That is a mere drop in the ocean compared even with the disappointing 2000-4000 home fans who now turn up for non Old Firm and Aberdeen games. Compared with the admittedly less than outstanding numbers which turn up for home games now, those who gave a serious toss about the merger are a mere minor appendix. As for the 6000 who travelled to Perth, many of these were "I only go to big games" type "fans" (of whom there are still plenty on some occasions now). I really can't imagine too many of them caring enough about the club still to be so outraged and incensed at the heresy of the merger that they feel motivated to stay away from the glory hunting occasions which they were wont to attend in the past. Quite simply, the St. Johnstone replay in 1992 was a massive occasion in Inverness football, possibly only upstaged by Thistle's trip to Celtic Park in 1985 and Caley's home game against Rangers in 1984. Occasions like that were Mega in Inverness in these days and of course attracted fans in their hordes. Even replaying Dundee United in 1998 was a very big occasion, but meeting them at home in Caley Thistle's third season in the SPL is bogstandard. And, in the perception of your average gloryhunter, so is the fourth round of the cup for a club which has twice been to the semis and to which the quarters are well trodden territory. Playing an SPL team was massive pre merger and attracted huge crowds. Playing in the Third division at a new stadium was massive immediately post merger and attracted huge crowds. But to be realistic, at this rather more advanced stage of evolution, playing the SPL team immediately below you in the table is no longer sexy... especially if it's not on the season ticket and the said team has refused to allow reduced prices. Once again the novelty factor has worn off. But PLEEEEEASE.... abandon this myth about the merger!

I wouldn't go quite as far as "virtually confirming" C100, but on the basis of what I've been hearing and what most people would guess Sky would want, I'd be very surprised if this game is not on the Sunday. (I have to say there seem to have been quite a large proportion of "non Saturday" games at the Caley Stadium this season and I'm a bit of a traditionalist... or put more honestly, I like the routine of game... post match interviews... quick tea in Tesco... Social Club... Heathmount on a Saturday!)

I also notice from the commentary that Emily Goodlad, ex ICT, now seems to be Livingston's physio.... apparently sponsored by Ann Summers!!!

Mantis "Cannae" - was that not a Roman battle in 216 BC? Second Carthaginan War?

Caleyboy... this is not a gift. The 12% which the Supporters' Trust now has represents the £1 million plus of assets which Thistle and Caley put into the original merger. These assets literally belonged to the supporters (in the form of season ticket holders) of these original clubs and their resulting voting power is now vested in the supporters of ICT, many of whom are the same people. In the intervening years these shares had to be diverted for safety to the Members' Club. I could actually make quite a strong case that this happened because at the time, too many of the Thistle and Caley "Supporters" could not be "Trusted" to direct these assets in the best interests of the new club. So in more ways than one, the term Supporters' Trust is extremely appropriate!

The Trust, and what under the circumstances is a large but very fair 12% stake in Caley Thistle, is the up side of the Merger, now come home to roost in a comfortable environment more than a decade on from those difficult days. One of the key components of the eventual merger settlement was the creation of a Unified Members' Club which was designed to perpetuate within the new club the interests of the original merger partners. I for one was quite surprised at the time that junior partners Thistle agreed to this but in the end their much feared consumption by the much larger Caley faction never even emerged as an issue. The Suporters' Trust is now the natural successor of the original Members' Club. To start with the Members' Club had control of around half Caley Thistle's equity. This was only fair, given the proportion of the club's initial value which Thistle and Caley contributed. (Gross - Caley £1M for Telford Street (1996) plus an ongoing Social Club, Thistle £486,000 for Kingsmills (1995) plus the sale value of their Baron Taylor's St premises. Nett - after expenses and especially LEGAL FEES!, possibly something over 1M combined total.) As other sources of equity came in, such as Ian Fraser, the 1996 share issue and Tullochs, the Members' Club's share was progressively reduced by resolution of various General Meetings until it reached its current level of 12%. It could also be mentioned as an aside that it was Dougie McGilvray who, as Chairman, began this dilution process in the late 90s although he later disagreed with its continuation under David Sutherland. I think the central point here is that the very thing that created the greatest impediment to the merger - the fact that Thistle and Caley were owned by their Members, necessitating a series of large scale votes, and not by shareholders or directors - has now become the basis of this very generous shareholding held by the Supporters' Trust. In other words, Jags and Caley belonged to their members. These assets were eventually (!) converted into shares in ICT, stewardship of which was vested in the Members' Club, and, after appropriate dilution to 12%, that stewardship has now been rightly transferred to the Supporters' Trust. I cannot agree with Caley D's objection to a membership fee. After all it's less than half the cost of admission to a single football match and the Trust will have administrative expenses. In conclusion, I would add that I simply can't identify any of the devils which Clacher seems to imagine are lurking within but, in view of Scotty's excellent critique of Clacher's post, I need say no more on that issue.

According to the safety certificate, both the North and South stands hold 2601.

Perhaps (erroneous) speculation like this, if it has to be aired at all, could better be placed on The Rumour Mill. There was no press conference today although, on the strength of what appeared on this thread, I and a number of colleagues wasted a lot of time wasting the time of Bill McAllister, reception and the stadium and Charlie Christie checking this fiction out.

Peterhead were chasing him too... until Pele realised his name wasn't "Putalineon".

Kingsmills.... I believe the term "Rector" strictly refers to the person in charge of a senior secondary school. Primary schools have head teachers and in the case of Millburn, when it achieved "promotion" from junior secondary to six year comprehensive status in the late 70s, the head teacher Willie Weatherspoon was similarly upgraded to rector. By the way, what's the Scots law equivalent of manslaughter?

The (Scottish?) Sun is pretty bad. On today's Page 3, Keeley says: "Atlantic hero Michael Perham has put the pride back into British sport. While our cricket, rugby and football teams all flounder, it's taken a 14 year old......" Well, apart frrom Keeley failing to mention Andy Murray, I think OUR rugby team (which beat the "world champions" in the Calcutta Cup) and OUR football team (which beat the world runners up) seem to be doing all right at the moment. And given what we're seeing in Australia, I think anybody's cricket team would beat theirs. Indeed I'm convinced that this Sailor Laddie is only getting the prominence he's getting as a media distractor from the possibly imminent first Ashes whitewash since 1921. He should be in school doing his Prelims! And yes, I DID only look at Page 3 to sample the profundity of Keeley's contemporary observations. PS - I actually have a journalistic ambition to be engaged by The Sun as staff writer of the "Dear Deirdre" letters. I'm probably a bit old to be employed as one of these people in "Deirdre's Photo Casebook" who seem to spend their entire lives hanging about in bedrooms in their underwear!

One or two things here. Firstly, during the afternoon I exchanged a bit of good natured banter with the reporter concerned (Colin Blane) and he sent me a copy of his tastefully amended script for later bulletins. This now reads: "Rangers have fallen well behind Celtic in the league where thery've already lost home and away to Inverness Caledonian Thistle." Also, "slander" and "libel" do not exist in Scots law. There is the general term "defamation". And yes, it is the case that a statement is only defamatory if it is not true. If someone can prove "veritas" - ie that it's true - they can't be done for defamation. This is what the News of the World failed to prove in the Tommy Sheridan case.

Interesting you should raise that one. There were pieces in Saturday's programme about both Billy and Davie and the Billy piece said that he was summoned to the Kingsmills Hotel after scoring two v Rangers in a friendly in I think 1978 and signed on the spot.

Caley100 - piecing my recollections together, and thanks to your assistance, Caley (sic) beat Alex Smith's Stirling in 84 to go to on to meet Rangers at Telford Street. Then in 86 it was Berwick with an Urquhart second replay header leading to a tie against Hearts at Tynecastle. Both runs ended in 6-0 defeats. And in 87, the year Rangers were famously beaten by Hamilton, a 3-0 defeat for Caley by eventual cupwinners St. Mirren. Come to think of it, what a period of Scottish Cup ties for a Highland League side! 1984 - Rangers, 1986 - Hearts, 1987 - St. Mirren, 1990 - defeat of Airdrie, 1992 - draw with St. Johnstone. Was there not a tie against Hibs in there somewhere as well around 1989? And of course we also have to throw in the epic Thistle 3-0 defeat of Kilmarnock in 1985 and progress to Celtic Park. The "new " Caley Thistle going out 2-1 to QoS in the first round in 1994 came as a real anticlimax after that lot! And an interesting blast from the past. Making the draw last month for this Saturday's 2007 third round were Alex Smith who won the cup with St. Mirren 20 years previously and Adrian Sprott who scored the goal which put Rangers out at the same stage the same season. Were Stirling not also the team which beat Selkirk 20-0... in about 1985?

DJS - if it's Caley (sic) you're talking about, why not go back a few more years to circa 1984 when Caley put Albion out of the Cup?! As it happens, when I went through to introduce myself to the then Albion manager Alex Smith, after he joined County, it was one of the first things we talked about. On an historical note, my memory sometimes lets me down on this one. Was it the Stirling or the Berwick game in the mid 80s which went to a second replay at Methil where Urquhart clinched it with a classic header?