Charles Bannerman

So are you Derek Adams in disguise? (Sorry... maybe not the best time for levity, but I couldn't resist it.)

Robert... are you sure about that? http://www.scottishrugby.org/fixtures-results/?competition=123795 Glasgow Accies have 88 points from their full programme. Highland have 87 and Newton Stewart 82, both with one to play and Highland have the better points difference by a margin of 52. So I reckon that there's still one permutation that could deny Highland promotion which is for Newton Stewart to win their final game with a bonus point, taking them also to 87 and for Highland to lose their last game (both at home to fifth placed St Boswells) without getting a try bonus, and for these results to wipe out Highland's points difference advantage. That's a pretty formidable array of adverse circumstances, especially with Highland's last game at home to opponents 200 miles distant who have already failed to fulfil an away fixture, but still theoretically possible. But I agree, to win the league, Highland will need more than one point this Saturday since Accies have a slightly better points difference - ie a win or a draw, which I think is worth two points in rugby.

...... Discuss. Sounds like a very valid question for a UHI Final Honours exam in ICT Studies. The final sentence of a very perceptive post from Kingsmills.

No, I was there - disguised as a barmaid and listening in.

...... and then, modest to a fault, Dennis would escape through a fire door to avoid having to talk to the press about his five star performance!

Is "next Wednesday" the 18th (admittedly more likely on the 14th to be "this Wednesday") or the 25th? Just in case it's the former...... BUMP?

So I am led to understand - but those of you who were patient enough to wait for another six years.......

You could start with Inverness Thistle's 29 postponements v Falkirk at Kingsmills in the Scottish Cup in 1979.... and that still went ahead!

When a pitch inspection is declared in Scottish football, I womder what the Pass/Fail rate is?

I think I would agree with caleyboy here (assuming that the likes of Christie Senior or Kevin MacDonald are to be considered as from a separate, pre-ICT era?)

I don't know Johndo. They are limited company in which case no manner of "we were so busy otherwise" excuses can really be accepted. They are totally and absolutely constrained by companies legislation with which they have failed to comply. If you presume to be the board of a limited company then you are obliged to comply with the appropriate legal requirements - which simply has not so far happened. PS - donview tells me you were round and about earlier with your lovely wife and, presumably thanks solely to her , your doubtless equally lovely daughter - and I missed you.

Gringo, I'm afraid I'm in the other 0.01% on that one. I think the headline is memorable enough to have been identified as recycled from the local press immediately the Sun used it in 2000 - only around four years after the suggested time of use. In the autumn of 1996, a few weeks into Pele's reign, there was indeed a spate of high scoring wins but I have no recollection either of this being used by the Courier or the HN, nor of anyone speaking about this over the ensuing years. My understanding is that The Sun had the headline in waiting in the form of "Super Ally Goes Ballistic...." for McCoist to do serious damage to Celtic in an Old Firm game but were moved to take it out of cold storage for 9th Feb 2000.

It is indeed! I think this is probably the least unfavourable outcome in a situation where any chance of fulfilling the statutory requirements of the original requisition disappeared last midweek with the original indication that the meeting would take place on the 18th. I think I should perhaps take the opportunity of this hiatus to explain why I have been pretty persistent on this issue - from a time long preceding the Board's declaration at the end of February. I believe that one of the major strategic issues facing the football club is - and always has been - the development of support. The obvious need for this ranges from the balance sheet to the feeling the guys get when they walk on to the pitch on a Saturday. Nuff said on that familiar matter. Two major assets in any campaign to develop support are, in my view, the Social Club and a successful supporters' organisation. In the case of the Social Club, I took a good swing at that on here and in my HN column back in January which didn't go down too well in some quarters but very well in others. The intervening progress will be acknowledged in the paper on Thursday but, at the time, one of several problems in Grieg St was that you needed to feel you were entering a Caley Thistle branded Caley Thistle social club and not the Orange Lodge. Now you do because this has changed very much for the better under Alan MacDonald's stewardship in recent months. As for CJT, it was bad enough having a perpetually inactive supporters' organisation but in my view that got a whole lot worse when the inertia became institutionalised with the appearance of the Board late in February. The EGM motion offered the opportunity for that knot to be cut and the holding of this meeting is vital in terms of getting this body up and running. Apart from CJT holding 10% ICT voting rights, an active supporters' organisation must be in operation before the start of next season which is less than four months away. This is why pressure needs to be maintained in order to develop support as much as possible in advance of what looks MOST likely to be a pretty credible push to return to the Premiership at the second time of asking. So, if action is taken tomorrow to rearrange this meeting it can be held on Thursday 26th April if the original requisition is considered still to be legally valid or on Thursday May 10th if it's considered that both the 28 and 14 day processes have to be repeated. Yes, I think it's that urgent.

I reckon Hawkeye is bang on, but it looks pretty complicated! If ICT win all their games, they finish on 59 points. Against that.... St Mirren and Livingston are away and clear and If Dundee United (who don't have to play ICT) win all their games, they finish on 64 points. So it's not in ICT's hands to catch these three. However..... If Dunfermline win all their games, except ICT, they finish on 58 points. If Morton win all their games, except v ICT, they finish on 56 points. If QoS, who don't have to play ICT, win all their games, they finish on 52 points. So I agree with Hwkeye. ICT winning all their games would guarantee finishing above Morton, QoS and Dunfermline, but not necessarily DU, but that's enough for 4th. However I also agree with Hawkeye..... whether that is possible is a different matter.

On or off? Search me! Where is it recorded? See CaleyD's post around 11am today. He quotes an email from the board stating that it is "impossible" to hold the meeting within the 28 days. April 18 is 26 clear days on from the original requisition, but only 13 after the day of notice. Farce? That's what I've been trying to say at least since the existence of an anonymous board was posted here on Feb 27 - but this reality check is dismissed by some as unduly harsh on the board members! And in that last connection, I should perhaps add that if their backsides hadn't been held to the fire from the start..... we still wouldn't even know who they are!!

Alas, I fear that the current situation is beyond redemption and it is no longer possible to hold a constitutionally valid meeting with a watertight outcome on Wednesday 18th, or to comply with the original requisition at all. In terms of the notice, only 13 clear days were given and, as Caley D stated, it would only require one successful objection to render the meeting invalid. It's also not clear whether any objection could be retrospective, should someone not like any outcome reached. Then there are the means the Board used to publicise the meeting. Did they comply with the legislation? Meanwhile, the removal of the Facebook notification and the Board's attempt to have the arrangement cancelled could arguably leave enough doubt about whether the meeting will go ahead to invite a third possible challenge. The current arrangements could also result in one "side" considering themselves to be under-represented, casting further doubt on any outcome. I suspect that the legal expert within our numbers may have his views, which I imagine it may well not be appropriate for him to express publicly. However, even as a complete layman, and simply based on the several parallels with earlier events on both sides of the merger divide, I do have to wonder about the legality of the story so far? Indeed, if any CJT member got fed up enough, might the whole thing now be wide open to some kind of challenge by way of Interdict, which I believe is a means of preventing a legal wrong?

I strongly disagree. The absolutely central "fact" in this sorry and seemingly endless saga is the Board's persistent refusal and inability to discharge their obligations to Caley Thistle fans, to the law and indeed to the football club in which CJT has a 10% voting stake. Were it not for this extending catalogue of failures and prevarication, there would not be an issue here, because the root cause is the performance of the Board, which hence needs to be highlighted as each fresh depth is plumbed. If this Board is intent on persistently refusing to fulfil these obligations to Caley Thistle fans, then the Board's backsides need collectively and continuously to be applied to the fire until such time as they meet their statutory obligations. As for "my newspaper" - this Thursday's edition will indeed cover this question.... as well as another supporters' institution which has made major progress in recent months - the ICT Social Club.

And I wonder what the response would have been if GKN had come up with that one.....? For goodness sake - these people have, although they apparently deny it, set themselves up as the board of a Limited Company which is subject to Statute. It doesn't matter how "complex" it is to arrange this meeting - they have made themselves legally obliged to fulfil the necessary requirements. Once again, the impression is inevitable that they just do not have the first clue about the implications of what they have insisted on letting themselves in for. I would also suggest that if they are finding it "impossible to achieve" the "request" (it's not a request - it's a legal requirement), then rather than clutch at the excuse of dismissing the procedure as "quite complex", they should instead look at their inability to collect incoming communication within a period of nine of the ample 28 days they have to arrange the meeting. In a sense, they have almost rendered the meeting - or at least Resolution 1 - unnecessary, since the need for them to be replaced has been made demonstrably obvious by their own incompetence.

I don't know if you're a member of CJT or not, Blair, but you would need to make sure that you had become one before you turned up because this meeting should be restricted to members of the Company. In terms of admission, I'd be interested to see exactly what procedures are in place to ensure that everyone that's admitted is a bona fide Company member. I also wonder if Caley D's queries about provision for proxies have been addressed?

I still can't help but get the feeling that this Board - whether it is self- appointed or has simply failed to reveal the manner of its formation - simply doesn't have a clue as to how serious a situation it faces. This isn't the local Allotments Committee. It's the Board of a Limited Company and as such is subject to the provisions of the Companies Act. What we are now learning is that this Board isn't even capable of organising a meeting within a clearly specified set of rules - and worse still, its excuse for not doing so is that it doesn't have an effective system for receiving communications. I suppose all I can say to that is that, given its non-existent means of giving out communications, this is hardly surprising! Perhaps the current Board's inability to perform even the basic function of receiving communication should also be noted at the forthcoming meeting, because the sorry tale of the calling of this meeting is as unacceptable as the earlier statement that they weren't going to call one on their own initiative because they (conveniently) didn't think it would do any good. I've heard some feeble excuses for self-preservation, but I find this ongoing pantomime to be a regular learning experience.

Apologies! I just looked at a 2 month old post and replied.... never thinking that someone else had made the same post a couple of days previously. Like Admiral Nelson.... I kind of took my eye off the musket ball.

AW! What a missed opportunity, which I only spotted now on reviewing this thread, but better late than never...... As Admiral Nelson said: "Well I see no ships!!!"

I would have thought that the notice calling the meeting SHOULD have defined the business of the meeting verbatim from the communication requisitioning it. Caley D's post does seem to suggest that I am by no means the only person questioning practices and procedures relating to the calling and transaction of this meeting.

IF this, plus any other means of announcement, meet Companies House guidelines for the process of publicising General Meetings, notice was issued at around 2330 on 4th April for a meeting on 18th April. According to this:- www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/Clear-days-some-clarity-9061.aspx ... and in particular to this quote from it:- "All notice periods for shareholders' meetings must be notice periods of 'clear' days. This means that the notice period must exclude the day on which notice is sent as well as the day on which the meeting is to be held".... the period of notice given for this meeting appears to be 13 clear days. Does this fulfil the requirements of Companies House legislation and of the CJT Articles of Association? Also, does the wording of the notice mean that the debate on Resolution 1 will be followed by a vote on it on the night? And if that vote was to be for the removal of the current Board, what would the procedure and timescale be for the election of a new one in terms of Resolution 2?

The SPFL have just published their scale of payouts for league placing and, since it's looking like a mid to lower table Championship finish for ICT, the club can expect around £200,000. The drop down within the Premiership in particular and from league to league is pretty vast - especially between the top two divisions where the bottom Premiership side, with £1.07M, gets twice the Championship winners' £533K. Just as a sign of how days have changed, if you take 7th in the Premiership as a not atypical ICT finish in years gone by, this season, that's worth £1.36M. It's just another reflection of the financial cost of relegation.