Charles Bannerman

How realistic is it to expect significant reductions in ticket prices at Caley Thistle? The Board's first responsibility has to be to come as close as they can to balancing the books. Recent years have produced losses, albeit not of the catastrophic proportions which can't be sustained and avoiding that surely must be a top priority. As a result the only real option in terms of ticket income is to try to maximise it and I don't think that demand for tickets would be sufficiently elastic to sustain income in the face of significant price cuts by bumping up crowds all that much. I know it's tempting for fans to suggest that prices should be reduced and to claim in justification that this would be compensated for by increased crowds. But would it really? Would, for instance, knocking a third off ticket prices really increase attendances by the 50% (that's typically 1500-2000 extra at each ICT home game) that would be necessary to avoid the resulting income loss which couldn't be sustained? And when the OF come to visit, it wouldn't even be possible physically to accommodate the extra people you would need to achieve that target, even if the demand was there for it. (No calls for a new West Stand PLEASE!!!) It's already the case that fans pay into a club for tickets far less than what it costs to put a team on the park, which is normal in football and is why clubs pursue other sources of income. But one of the main factors here is that the nature of the game is such that your full time paid employees only generate income on average once a fortnight. That is economically illogical but it's the way football is whereas a theatre with a full time cast, for instance, offers shows several times a week. In the football environment it would be nice to be able to let people in more cheaply but if there is going to be a club there at all at the end of it, then the books need to be balanced so ticket income needs to be maximised. One possible exception here might be a situation where concessionary rates might initially offered to potential customers (eg free tickets for kids) by way of encouraging NEW business but existing customers might complain if this became too extensive. I would just want to conclude by suggesting that the reasons for demand for football tickets not being very elastic probably include the effects of televised football and the availability of alternative forms of entertainment - live or otherwise.

You seem to have forgotten to include along with your suggestion advice for the people who have to try to balance the club books as to how they could make good the resulting loss of revenue - probably amounting, even with a full house, to tens of thousands of pounds. Or would you simply for instance be happy enough perhaps not to have signed one or two of the players who came in during the window?

Mmm... I just wonder how many members of The Scottish Referendum Party are "loyal" devotees of football's Unionist Club?

Johnny Tuffey a broad English accent? "Achyerjokeenmun" as we say in a broad Inverness one!

Without going into too much detail, the shifting of this Killie game might well mean that the next Saturday 3pm KO (the traditional time for football) at the Caledonian Stadium is 14th or 21st April, after the split. The only exception could be March 10th, either if ICT were to beat Celtic in the Cup and get a home quarter final not shifted by TV, or if both ICT and St J both go out of the Cup in which case the Jan 2nd postponed game could fit in there. The other possibility of course is that ICT might go all the way to the Cup semi finals on April 14th/15th so the next Saturday 3pm home game could then be as far away as April 28th. But somehow I can't see ICT fans complaining too much at that one

Except for the 0-0 against Ayr in Aug 09. But in SPL I think you are correct Yes, SPL and also in the First Division, as Alex mentions, there was a goalless draw away from home in Dingwall.

Here's an interesting statistic. This appears to be Caley Thistle's first goalless draw at home since 1st February 2009 - Terry Butcher's and Maurice Malpas' debut game at home to Celtic. Yesterday was the management duo's third anniversary in Inverness.

That is an absolutely LOVELY illustration of the Temporary Bridge and Castle Tolmie - just as I remember them. Is the illustration part of a set? Caley's account of the construction and disposal of the various bridges is exactly as I understand it. The plan had been to replace the old suspension bridge in 1939 because they feared it was unable to support the weight of "modern" traffic and the temporary bridge was there as the intended alternative during construction. However the war intervened and work didn't start as planned. Inevitably, post war austerity made funds short but in any case, the old asymmetric suspension bridge had quite happily supported the weight of tanks running over it for six years and for the 20 odd years that elapsed, the temporary bridge did a lot to relieve traffic volumes which by then were beginning to increase. Given the congestion on the current main bridge, and as deliberations on the western relief road seem to go on interminably, maybe we could do with the temporary bridge back again!

DD... the poll question asks specifically whether respondents would prefer to beat Celtic in the Cup or in the League. Instantly, responses come back based on a totally different scenario which is the huge extrapolation to ICT actually WINNING the cup. If that's not an inconsistency, then I don't know what is. I'm not actually advocating a response of "League" to the original question. I'm only pointing out that on the basis of that question, the answer is perhaps not totally black (green?) and white. On the other hand if the original question had been "Would you prefer to WIN the Cup or beat Celtic in the League" the answer would clearly have to be "Win the Cup". That, of course, is provided that the three points surrendered to Celtic were not the ones which cost a second relegation which - as I said before - would be literally catastrophic.

Hang on a minute, there's a huge inconsistency in this thread. The poll question says "Would you rather beat Celtic in the League or the Cup"? But almost instantly the additional assumption seems to be taken on board that ICT would then straightforwardly go on to win the next three ties as well and hence win the Cup itself. Simples? Aye, right! There is a MASSIVE difference between beating Celtic full stop (a huge ask in itself) and a defeat of Celtic as the second of six straight victories in Scottish Cup ties this season which is what winning the Cup would require. But some people seem to make this sound so straightforward. I would imagine that ICT actually winning the Cup would bring in more money than would be lost as a result of any fall in SLP placing resulting from the other half of the hyopthesis which is losing to Celtic in the SPL and of course also to the disruptive effect a Cup run of this magnitude might have on league form. But, unlikely though that may now look to many, should this hypothetical Cup victory also be accompanied by relegation then this would be a victory which would be Pyrrhic in the extreme because, make no mistake, a second relegation would be potentially catastrophic for ICT. But then follow the argument through the actual wording of the question - would you prefer to beat Celtic in the League or the Cup (full stop)? The next question has to be - but what do you get in the quarter finals? St. Mirren away and lose the tie? Would you still prefer to sacrifice your three hypothetical league points and the boost such a victory would give to the rest of the campaign? I think realism has to be felt here and the reality is that ICT MAY beat Celtic in this Cup tie, but irrespective of what heppened in February 2000 and March 2003, the bookies will have Celtic as odds on favourites to progress. That scenario is a VERY long way from ICT winning the Cup!

Even if that were to mean having insufficient funds to maintain SPL football? Would you be more bothered about the money if you were one of the people responsible for trying to balance the books or having to sustain credibility on the pitch within the constraints of a reduced budget?

BBC now reporting he has gone to St. Mirren for £35K.

Mantis... put me right on this. Neil happens to be a former pupil of mine, but was Rasper his dad?

A tad harsh perhaps .... I think a "journeyman pro" is maybe more apt a description. A decent player most of the time, and one who has flashes of inspiration on occasion which can turn or win games. Matchwinner on his day indeed! Remember his goal in 39 sec on his first return North in red and white hoops? Here's an interesting thought. Dougie possibly moving for £25,000? Fast backwards to 1995 when a pound was worth a lot more but Iain Stewart went from Lossiemouth to Caley Thistle for £30,000, albeit determined by a tribunal.

This may be of some use to people who aren't at the game and don't have access to the TV commentary for the replay. Radio Scotland will have full live commentary on 810 medium wave from Liam MacLeod with Craig Paterson and possibly John Robertson summarising. I could guess there's a fair chance of this also being available abroad but I don't know.

Neil MacDonald was on Caley Thistle's books for a while in the early years wasn't he?

Don I was, of course, only "jokeen" as we say in Inverness. Regarding the lease, was it not a 99 year lease granted in 1994 by the Counciland hence expiring in 2093 which is 81 years off? Is the duration of the lease not calculated from the time it was initially granted in 1994 and not from when the "next leaseholders" took it over?

Therein lies the problem, but first let me make a couple of comments on Don's last post. I agree completely that it's unlikely that funding like in 1996 - which was made to get national league football initially into Inverness and £900,000 of that was a dire emergency - would materialise again. And the question relating to a relocation of the value of the remaining 81 years of the lease, allied with the added complication of it being owned by the Trust not being owned by the club (I only changed that to avoid Don going off on one of his perorations ) is also an interesting one. But to move on to the question of "where?" regarding any relocation. What you have to remember here is that in the years up to 1993, Caley (sic) tried a whole lot of places including Kinmylies, Canal Field, the Bught and the Carse and they all fell through. In the absence of the Holm Mains - A82 link, the thought of thousands of football fans trying to get across the Ness Bridge at 5pm on a Saturday continues to make the Bught a non starter - assuming a site could even be found because the Bught Stadium and the Queens Park are absolute non starters. Unfortunately I once again have to refer to Against All Odds, Chapter 8 on this occasion, where there is a detailed account of the eleven sites, no less, in Inverness which were looked at on Caley Thistle's behalf in 1993 and all but two were rejected for some reason or another. Apart from East Longman, the only other strong runner was out on the Golden Mile at Stratton Farm and after a titanic battle between the club and INE that also fell by the wayside, leaving the current site. Stratton Farm was still regarded as suitable, it was just that it was too far away from where a lot of fans lived. But whether it would still be available is another matter. But the bottom line here, I might imagine, is that the club's number one financial priority for the foreseeable future might well be keeping the books as close to balanced as possible with respect to keeping a football team on the field and in the SPL, with relocation somewhat further down the list of priorities.

Telford Street realised £1M and Kingsmills Park £486K. The net value of the assets was £1.225M after various expenses (including considerable legal expenses for both Thistle and Caley) and possibly tax on the Caley deal. The total bill for the Stadium, completed in 1996, was £4.844M. The balance was made up of £511K from INE, £373K from the EU Objective 1 fund, bank borrowings of £928K, Roads and Transport grant of £87K, a Football Trust grant of £619K, a Football Trust loan of £200K and the much discussed Inverness Common Good Fund grant of £900K. That was what made the CGF Grant so vital in the whole equation. Massive economies and short cuts had already had to be be made to keep the cost down to £4.844M and they were still around £1M short. Without the CGF grant, the whole thing could well have foundered. One major reason for it being so expensive was that the planners insisted on a road which cost £1.3M. There was also an insistence that the finish of the building wasn't just cheap and nasty blocks as well as a lengthy list of other planning requirements - right down to "16 cycle racks (Sheffield Style)" As a result, anything more elaborate than what appeared was out of the question. It's really important to understand how marginal the construction of the necessary stadium was in financial terms, but it was an integral part of the deal for Inverness to get intothe SFL. On the other hand, what did materialise was relatively easily upgraded to 6000 seats when the opportunity of SPL football came along - which at the planning stage in 1994 probably wasn't even foreseen by Dougie McGilvray. As for the gas pipeline, yes that was known about but really the problems related to going to so many other sites were so huge that it was regarded as relatively minor at the time. Finding a site was also a major issue. And the gas pipeline remains a minor issue, given that building a fourth stand remains inconceivable for the foreseeable future. I do appreciate the danger of a tide of protest there may be at me appearing to plug my own book, but Against All Odds is free on this site and the whole tale is told there in detail!

The addition of a large fourth stand is an old chestnut which emerges from time to time but on each occasion the answer has to be "absolutely not". Other posters have already made the point that even OF games don't quite fill the ground as it is. And even IF the Rangers and Celtic ends are just about full, how much demand would there be for any extra capacity provided? The expectation here seems to be that a new stand should be provided at massive cost IN CASE there MIGHT be a FEW Old Firm fans looking for seats on THREE occasions in the year. And what would it cost to satisfy this wish list? Well apart from the very large cost of basic construction (someone suggested £750,000), there is also, as mentioned, the gas pipeline which, if I recollect a conversation with David Sutherland a few years back, could most straightforwardly be solved by a device known as a cantilever to support the stand - at the additional cost of £1 million. So all this POSSIBLY to accommodate a FEW Old Firm fans - and at a time when the club has been obliged to sell off its Social Club for a fraction of the cost of a new stand to create ready cash and still unfortunately runs a deficit. I actually thought that the reduction of the absurd SPL requirement of 10,000 seats - in which ICT played a major part - was the major breakthrough back in 2005 since there were already lots of surplus seats about the country. But here we seem to have a desire for a club which is short of cash voluntarily to go back up to the old requirement to satisfy a demand which doesn't exist. I really think ICT has much better things to spend money on than a stand which would sit empty effectively on a permanent basis. I know the Chairman reads this forum quite regularly. I could guess that he's unsure whether to laugh or cry at this thread!

TV coverage 10:20 - 11:40 tonight. The County game is definitely worth a look as well. The Vigurs free kick was a work of art!

Unfortunately there's no BBC commentary today apart from the early kick off because there are 13 ties simultaneously at 3pm. However there WILL be an all singing all dancing Open All Mics from them all... including CHRIS HOGG making his Open All Mics debut at ICT v Dunfermline. This is on 810MW, 92-95FM and 103.5-105FM in addition to online options. Don't know how the diaspora are fixed. If you tune into Final Score on BBC 1 Scotland from about 4:30 you should also get Chris's full time TV report (not in vision though.) Right... I'm off to run the rule across those prospective SPL candidates acrioss the water......

Completely unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence can really be so tedious!

Aye, here we have Dougal fishing for a reaction again - and with a newspaper story, the substance of which has actually been in the public domain for a very long time because it's several years now since County obtained planning permission and fixed a 12 week timescale for upgrading VP. So maybe try to wind people up using new news next time Doogie boy? I for one would be delighted to see Ross County alongside ICT in the SPL next season and I really hope they have to put their plans into force. What Dougal of course has failed - or rather declined - to mention is that the Caledonian Stadium is 1700 odd in excess of the current 6000 SPL requirement - for which ICT can take a great deal of credit since they were instrumental in having the absurd 10,000 limit scrapped in 2004. No mention either of the fact that current capacity is perfectly adequate and that the absence of a fourth large stand makes advertising visible from the A9, hence increasing its value to the club. He also declines to mention that these stands have a perfectly adequate lifetime, they look perfectly normal and acceptable and, in the event of ICT moving home at any point, they could presumably be shifted to the new location, hence reducing costs. Anyway, I've said enough since even this brief response is in danger of conferring some credibility on Dougal's latest attempt to stir people up. Oh and by the way Dougal....INcomplete is the word you're looking for.

Do you mean the GTWB Productions thread? If you do, then I am sure it won't be too long before you acquire a fuller understanding of the traditions of CTO. IHE's GTWB Production is as much part of CTO over the Festive Season as cranberry jelly, sprouts, stuffing and roast potatoes are part of a turkey dinner or Jimmy Nairn's Disneyland was part of the Yuletide Playhouse cafe. GTWB (*) is a veritable CTO institution - indeed as much so as the annual "Memories of Olde Sneck" thread which also used to command a place on the main forum but actually did not appear this year, possibly because it has lately become an all year round institution with its own dedicated forum. GTWB fully deserves its place on the most popular section of this forum not only because of its legendary status but also (and I trust you noticed this when you read through it) its constant references to a multitude of regular posters as well as to ICT's early and pre history, culminating as it does in a Caley v Jags final. On the other hand, maybe Mainstander's option B and Mantis' comment (above) help to explain why the Mods appear to have taken the view that this thread should be moved to General Nonsense. (*)- just in case you're not sure what GTWB stands for, it's Granville, Toich and Willie Bell who are all Inverness institutions of the mid/latter part of the 20th century. The first had an intense interest in Animal Husbandry (sic) although tended to go into denial of that in the courtroom. The second was a well known lunatic of this parish while the third once allegedly had a plot under his kilt to blow up pylons in the name of militant Scottish Republicanism. All would also have been known professionally, if not to IHE, then at least to his father and to his colleague my psychiatrist uncle.