Charles Bannerman

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.

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!!!!

Let's also not forget that CJT holds 10% of the voting rights at a general meeting - and it has already been suggested that if CJT goes defunct, so do these voting rights, which represent something like the third or fourth biggest single source of influence within the club.

Dunno about home crowds - there were several in 3 figures during the first season - but in Montecatini during the pre-season tour in 2006, I was in an away crowd of something like 12.?

Even if the temperature was above 5C, there probably wouldn't be enough light around to achieve significant growth during the winter. It's the old story of putting the lawn mower in the shed in September and taking it back out in April. On the other hand, in more recent years, these rough times have seemed to drift a little.

Tommy ("Grass grows by the inch and is ruined by the foot"?) has a 30 year-long reputation for keeping and sustaining a fine football pitch. It therefore seems unlikely that the reason for the current state of the pitch has anything to do with the capability of the ground staff, but will far more probably be something to do with availability of resources.

I have to say that I'm a it bemused by an event where there's a fairly high probability of being fouled out of a medal by a rival and, although the rival is DQd, your prospects are also at an end. But, tumbling out of FIVE Olympic events in a row? I really think there has got to be more to it than bad luck and that her tactic of skating so very close to rivals is not only increasing the chances of her falling but also putting her in a position to be caught by someone else. My sympathy with her is beginning to evaporate now and there's also one other question. Why on EARTH did the team management allow her to go through with that awful interview after the 500, the consequences of which will probably haunt her for the rest of her life? It was even more cringeworthy than Alan MacRae's unveiling of Alex McLeish!

Don't get too many to practise with!

Absolutely not, but it is worthwhile using this already well established hubris to reinforce what was being said in the post in question. In other words, the irony was worth revisiting.

This post raises a number of very interesting issues and questions. What do "new money", "fresh money" and "investment" mean? Do these terms simply mean charitable donations from wealthy individuals to right the ship after a period when the club lived beyond its means - and to allow expenditure to continue at a level which exceeds earnings? What actually is an investor who "will definitely not receive any return on their money"? Is this a benefactor? Or a source of subsidy? Or are these two euphemisms for a "sugar daddy" simply synonymous? Why does this practice appear acceptable in the case of ICT (who also received £6M, albeit with a few qualifications, from Tulloch) whilst dismissed as "Uncle Roy's Back Pocket" in the case of Ross County? Have the current board - who have been in post for only a short time - REALLY done all they can? Who are "sources with an affinity for the Club, perhaps even a previous history with the Club"? Is this a call for control of the club to pass to a regime involving the McGilvray family, or Alan Savage, or both? Or someone else? What is the thinking behind advocating that the Muirfield Mills influence be dispensed with? They are not especially large shareholders in their own direct right, although they have rather more than the suggested "circa £200K". The last full Companies House statement of holdings indicates £376,000 worth of shares, and I would be very surprised if MM were not also involved in the additional 450,000 shares allocated just last week in return for money put up front since the end of last season to keep the club afloat. I am also led to believe that another significant slice of this came from a source with a previous history with the club (but no inverted commas). Remember also that there are several other fairly large but quite fragmented holdings on the part of, for instance, Roddy Ross, David Cameron, the McGilvray Family, Orion Engineering, the ICT Trust (controlled by MM), David Sutherland (personally as opposed to Tullochs who donated their shares to the Trust) and - in the form of 10% of voting rights - the perpetually elusive Caley Jags Together (which is an ongoing concern). Where is this "new board" going to materialise from - a board which would continue to operate in an environment where shareholding remains fragmented? Finally - has there, of late, actually been a further, sudden deterioration in the club's financial affairs.... or is this simply a Twitter rumour to which the Board felt obliged to respond with its statement?

So would I, and this applies not only to ICT but to a large number of clubs. There is also an interesting potential debate here in sporting psychology and ethics (or possibly ethos) about the extent to which, in football, cash overrides other influences in providing a source of motivation to train and perform. Then, when you wonder how much the players involved in the alleged drunken incident at their Spanish training camp actually get paid, you really do have to ask if the p**s is getting taken rather too often?

I'm not sure about that. Wages are being artificially inflated above levels which, in a normal business environment or market, would be determined by the income coming into the sport. Clubs persist with this regime of over payment through living outwith their means, by carrying unrealistic liabilities, and by depending on the said "sugar daddies" - who can be as easily gone tomorrow as they are here today. Also contributing to this process is the sport as a whole straining every last sinew of the cash raising process by agreeing to TV deals which have significant down sides which include bizarre kick off times. I would also suggest that any argument that suggests that the current TV deals are part of a genuine market value, then there is no case whatsoever for fans to complain about the truly nonsensical kick off times which are being imposed on them by these deals.

Not quite. Football generally pays its players above, sometimes well above, their market value - hence creating, among other things, the need to bankroll that through TV deals with arrangements like 5:15 Sunday kick-offs. One of the main reasons Caley Thistle is on an unsound financial footing is that it latterly paid its players even further above that market value (ie compared, relatively, with the rest of football) in a failed attempt to remain in the Premiership.

Nice one, Yngwie.... but it will never happen. It's the obvious, logical thing - has been for years - but football is far too tribal, or indeed human nature in general is far too tribal. Many of the factors which helped things in Inverness to limp across the line in 1993 - 94 do not exist with respect to what is otherwise a viable next step.

The bigger concern is people who are shyte at fitba getting big money for being shyte at fitba. (qv, among others, ICTFC in recent years.) And then there are all these sets of Emperor's New Clothes which Scottish football in particular continues to acquire.