Charles Bannerman

The Board's statement is saying "STV's report of an emergency meeting, as also subsequently picked up by other media, is bollox." It could of course be argued that the statement may also be bollox and the Board are privately examining the situation. We have no way of establishing that but the top line that I would be writing as a result is "Inverness Caledonian Thistle have issued a statement denying reports of an emergency board meeting to discuss the future of manager Richie Foran after a run of poor results which sees the club four points adrift at the bottom of the Premiership with six games to play."

I'm not sure what you mean by "take over" the club? Certainly the Board doesn't own the club - the shareholders do and I'm not sure that the individual directors between them actually hold a massive number of shares. I used to have a pretty good idea of who owned what but have lot track although I'm sure this wouldn't be too difficult to check out. As far as I recollect, Tulloch's substantial minority holding went to the ICT Trust, Sandy Catto's fairly sizeable chunk, which is partly Ian Fraser's former holding of 300,000+, went to the Highland Hospice who still haven't sold them, Alan Savage/Orion still have a perhaps slightly smaller slice (285,000?) as a "legacy" for the Marius Niculae deal and I believe Muirfield Mills acquired shares as part of their investment of a few years ago. Dougie McGilvray used to have (off the top of my head) 80,000 and may well still have them - I don't know. There are other bits and pieces as well plus the penny numbers that individual punters took up in £250 chunks back in 1996. So IF the board were hypothetically to resign, it would presumably be a case of appointing new directors who would run the club in accordance with the Companies' Act and would remain answerable to the shareholders as very roughly defined above. Also, your second sentence there... I am interpreting it as if there was a comma after the word "in".... ie the "state" you refer to is general as opposed only to the "funds" aspect. Things certainly aren't good on the field, but if you mean the club as a whole, could you please possibly elaborate?

"Pride of the Highlands".... "The Highlands Are Ours"....."Always In Our Shadow". Yup..... hubris always carries its attendant risks. I am sure Robert, the Original Poster on this thread, won't take offence, and nor should he, if I describe his wise words as "the bleeding obvious". His advice certainly trumps checking out the boozers in Ayr and Dumfries most easily accessible by bus pass.

Devil's advocacy time! So when times are good, the credit goes to the managers and not to the board who appointed him. But when times are bad, the blame sits with the board and not with the manager they appointed.???

From an Inverness point of view, I just can't see any justification for looking for a Hamilton win, or even a draw. For Inverness, the rest of the season is totally about overtaking one or preferably both of Hamilton and Motherwell. Anyone else overtaken would merely be a welcome bonus but I really don't see any case at all to wish for any outcome that gives Hamilton or Motherwell points - even if it disadvantages County. Safety is the supreme - indeed really the only - consideration and in comparison, the hope of catching County pales into complete insignificance.

I'm not sure what you mean there scottishhighlands, but I wonder if you are assuming that the Premiership 11th placers come in at the start of the playoffs, which I don't think is the case. As far as I am aware, the Premiership 11th placers have a single home and away meeting with whichever of the three Championship sides comes out on top in their part of the playoffs. This means "only" having to gain an aggregate advantage across a two game tie. This format which reduces the number of banana skins for the Premiership side also, of course, reflects the "SPL protectionism" which we in the Highlands, in lower league days, were always very quick to criticise

Yes, I know what you mean Ronaldo. For instance Caley D could be Captain Bligh in disguise

Are you Fletcher Christian in disguise?

TICK, ticky ticky,ticky, TICK, ticky,ticky,ticky, TICK (plonk,plonk,plonk)..... Countdown indeed, but not how many letters after 30 seconds - rather how many points after 38 games, and the clock says 7 left before DDE-DUM, DEE-DUM, DIDDILY-DUM...OOH!

10 games ago, I made a guess based on other years of 33 points to avoid bottom and 36 to avoid the play offs. Based on more recent results from Motherwell and Hamilton (including Hamilton's "windfall" last Saturday), I think that may need revised to 35 and 37. That amounts to 10 and 12 points respectively from the last 7 games for the playoffs and complete safety respectively. The first 21 games to the end of January produced 16 points or 0.76 per game. The next 10 until now produced a further 9 points, or an improvement to 0.90 per game. 10 and 12 from the last 7 games represents 1.42 and 1.71 per game for playoffs/safety. That's a very big improvement on 0.90 because games are running out. On the other hand points against Motherwell and Hamilton effectively count as double since, with wins especially important, these also reduce their options. These six pointers will be crucial.

At the end of January I did a breakdown for the Highland News when ICT had 16 points from 21 games or 0.76 per game. I had to guess what would be needed to gain 11th or 10th and, based on previous years, went for 33 and 36 points. I now wonder if these were slight underestimates. To reach 33 from the full programme of 38 games was, in January, going to need 1.00 points per game across the 17 which remained, and 1.18 to reach 36. Since then, 10 of these 17 games have been played, yielding 9 points, or 0.90 per game. That's better than the previous 0.76 but still short of target. This therefore raises the two targets from 1.00/1.18 to 1.18/1.55. So although the last 10 games have seen an improvement on the first 21, this hasn't been big enough so far to set a course for safety, hence the per game targets are now even higher. The arithmetic is tipping against and even more so with 33/36 points likely to be slight underestimates. However the whole business now boils down rather more to head to heads v Motherwell and Hamilton.

You seem to be assuming that the teams "above" ICT in that group will be getting few, or any points so they can be overtaken by one Inverness win.

DD I think you also have to take into account Inverness's location. A combination of being far out of the way and having very limited budgets has never made it easy to attract players. ICT has, of course, done it in the past but I think it's a pretty marginal business persuading players to come here so doesn't always work. When remoteness is combined with money - such as at Aberdeen and indeed many would say "boring" Dingwall as well - the difficulty is alleviated. As for St Johnstone, Perth is just that 100 odd miles further down the road which I think alters the situation as well. What I've said there is by no means the sole factor. Situations like this are more often than not in the "perfect storm" category and there will be other influences acting as well.

"Stand free"? In Aberdeen? No chance! They'll be charging at least £25 a seat.

You now really have to wonder what influence an unseemly scrap between two St Johnstone players at Hamilton may ultimately have on Caley Thistle's prospects of survival? It took Hamilton a long, long time to cash in on their two man advantage and maybe indeed that is some indication of their lack of capability. However they were not expected to beat St Johnstone and they now have three bonus points thanks to the St J players' indiscretion. This could have a huge influence on the final outcome - as of course will forthcoming ICT games v Hamilton and Motherwell (who also got a bonus point)... and the final Highland Derby now also assumes enormous proportions. A festival of six pointers is in the offing I think.

Not quite. I have on a couple of occasions managed to put a private message on the person's... is it "timeline" you call it?

Was that "triple double entendre" deliberate?

It's unfortunate that, in the current pussyfooting, handwringing, PC, "no-platforming" era, apologists choose to conflate robust and legitimate criticism with "abuse". Clearly the abusive ones are those whose anti-social (is that too strong for you as well?) activities have been adequately described further up this thread and these need to be addressed in various ways. Indeed, one of the main reasons why these wee neds behave as they do is that they have become far too used to having their heads patted rather than (metaphorically in the present day and age) their a*ses well and truly kicked. If these undesirables are the "future of our club" as Pump Fake has just suggested, then our club indeed has no future. This is a football club and not a medium for the cultivation of delinquency. For your own sake, grow up lads.

The Kray Twins were very good to their mother......

Sod the Happy Clappy stuff. "Wee sh**es".... which is a fairly standard item of staffroom vocabulary.... are exempted from this principle.

To be honest, Huisdean, I'm not a lot further on after that answer. However, the account you give of the most definitely neddy behaviour of the Section E micro-louts is a lot more definitive and is a vivid description of an absolute disgrace. Wee neds like that need got rid of until they grow up - if they ever do so. For some reason, and sectarianism creates the same problem, football falls victim again and again as a platform for rank undesirables like this. Somebody mentioned losing 50 admissions if this infestation were not to turn up. Quite frankly it would be money well lost just to get rid of these obnoxious creatures but in practice, if it were thought that you could visit the Caledonian Stadium without having to be subjected to this brainless thuggery, the net financial effect would probably be positive. Little parasites like this are a cancer which urgently needs excised and to hear people attempting to justify them on the grounds that they make a noise is laughable. It's difficult to say how many of their parents are also neds but irrespective of that, one thing is certain - these parents all need to get a grip of the thoroughly unpleasant, anti-social behaviour of the offspring they have inflicted on our society.

I'm not sure that all this talk about the playoffs at this stage is a good idea because if it spreads it could become a self fulfilling prophecy. Yes of course there's a significant danger of finishing 11th and almost as great a danger of finishing 12th. That has to be recognised BUT before the end of the season ICT have to play Motherwell twice and Hamilton once and Motherwell and Hamilton have to play each other twice. That array of six pointers is the battleground in which I think these issues will now be decided and there's also the likelihood of another Highland Derby. It's one thing tacitly to acknowledge the significant risk of having to go into the playoffs, but I don't think it's a good idea to start talking now about preferred playoff opponents.... so I would stick with forresjags' final statement.

Could you please outline that financial impact, Huisdaen, and preferably give some details and numbers? This is something I am not aware of.

In this respect, football is very like politics. Just as people's voting habits change as they grow older and become more politically mature, so also do people abandon their childhood football preferences for something more gown up. But anyway.... yesterday's derby. How different would the outlook of both sides now have been in the absence of that late equaliser? A hypothetical question, however, about a costly goal for ICT and an extremely valuable one for Ross County.

Of course not, Scotty! (But I do remember the fuss when the Highland Newsfirst printed that photo )