Jump to content

DoofersDad

+06: Site Sponsor
  • Posts

    5,606
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    267

Everything posted by DoofersDad

  1. I certainly thought it was over the line at the time, but I'm not so sure now. I think I was swayed by the fact the side netting bulged, but you can clearly see in the video it is Mark's glove that causes that. Certainly most of the ball was over the line, but I can't see that all of the ball was. The referee couldn't see from where he was and the stand side linesman's view was probably obscured by the defender on the line. You can't give decisions unless you are sure it has crossed the line, so it was the correct decision not to give it. We may have got away with one but we would have been complaining bitterly had it been given!
  2. We clearly lost something when Mckay and Wotherspoon were replaced, but to be fair, I think they were pretty much spent. Billy in particular had been running his socks off in closing down defenders to harry them into rushed passes. When defending a lead you need the guys up front to do that and you need guys with pace so that you can hit the opposition on the break. The problem was that other than act as a target man, Sheridan offered nothing. Although fresh, he didn't put the Raith defenders under any sort of pressure and that gave Raith time to build constructively from the back. I also agree with Robert about our shyness in having a shot. We've been like that for a while. One would have thought that with all of our last 3 managers having been fine strikers in their playing days, looking for and taking the opportunity to take an early strike would be embedded in the playing culture. We are averaging just a goal a game in the league. If we don't improve on that, we will most definitely end the season at the wrong end of the table. The goal we did score yesterday was very well taken by Billy, but we were pretty fortunate. It was awful defending and Billy shouldn't have been allowed to get anywhere near the ball.
  3. Now that we've lost a game, at least it means Big Dunc can wear a jacket at the next match.
  4. HT. 0-0 FT. 1-1 ICT. Nathan Shaw Opp. Callum Smith Crowd. 2347
  5. I disagree. Whilst that approach would be more likely to ensure a comfortable win, it doesn't really tell the manager much. If there are players who are fighting for a starting place, you need to put them under a bit of pressure and challenge them to get the game won. You learn little about players if you stick them on when somebody else has already done the hard work. If the game is already safe, then it is a good time to bring on a youngster or two to get experience or players returning from injury who just need a bit of game time. I think Dunc got it about right with the starting line up and substitutions. He was let down by several players who can do much better than they showed yesterday. I expect the same sort of team selection against Broomhill in January, but a much improved performance.
  6. STFU sums it up well. The person I feel sorry for is Harry Lodovica if the manager thinks Sheridan is a better starting option than him. Sheridan was dreadful and makes Andy Barrowman (remember him?) seem like a club legend in comparison. But it was poor all round. I can't remember ever seeing so many misplaced passes. At times it seemed the ball was only passed forwards when the pass back looked too risky. It was absolutely dire. Thank goodness for Wotherspoon and Mckay who showed touches of real quality late on to give us a win we didn't deserve.
  7. That's a great picture. Their movement is so synchronised it looks as though they could be a couple on "Strictly" As for caption, maybe they're singing and dancing to "Anything you can do, I can do better".
  8. On June 13th the Club posted a lengthy "CEO Update" which included the following paragraph. "Infrastructure improvements at the Stadium have been identified and exciting new commercial contracts have been progressed, some to be announced in the coming days including our technical kit partner and main jersey sponsor/partner and subject to legal agreements in the coming weeks, we hope to have important news about the Stadium and its environs." To be best of my knowledge, no important news has emerged. Click here for the full statement.
  9. HT. 1-0 FT 4-0 ICT. Longstaff Opp. MacPherson Crowd 842
  10. Nice idea. And build a stadium that is actually fit for purpose on a more appropriate site?
  11. In the club's last financial statement to Companies House, the Chairman stated the Green Freeport had "huge potential for the development of our site". This and the Battery project were used to justify regarding the club as a "going concern" despite pre tax losses over £800k and net liabilities of over £1.7m. The narrative seems to have changed somewhat.
  12. Sorry, Charles. Can't help you out on any of this. Have you tried emailing the SLO?
  13. I think the fact that the Committee did not decide to pass it with conditions attached indicates they were minded to refuse it. Planning decisions should ensure all planning regulations are complied with. It sets a dangerous precedent if projects which do not comply are accepted simply because the project is seen to be important for the local community. I would imagine the majority of the Councillors would, in principle, want to see this project succeed and therefore the deferment period would be used to explore how the current barriers to approval can be overcome. I suspect the biggest problem is that the site is on land designated as open space. Unless there is relevant precedent, one possible solution may be to re-designate the site and maybe a bit more of the old golf course site as well. This, presumably would require public consultation and could be a lengthy process, especially when the prospect of appeals are considered. Whatever the outcome, this whole episode represents another example of poor communication by the club. It is also another example of a potentially good idea not being actioned competently.
  14. I'm glad I didn't go. I'd probably have had a heart attack and wouldn't be here now.
  15. Good post from Stephen. I pretty much agree with that assessment. It strikes me as strange that we have got to this stage and the Club are surprised at the Council planners recommending refusal. I also would have expected that ILI would have had pre-application discussions with the Council which would either have led them to revising plans so that they satisfy the planners concerns, or to prepare a case as to why they disagree with the planners. The objections do, however, seem very minor and one would have thought could easily be overcome with conditions attached to an approval. I'm not sure that Ross Morrison's belated lobbying is going to help or hinder the case. There is no doubting that a technology that makes a significant contribution to meeting net zero targets is to be welcomed and obviously having a steady and significant income stream coming into the Club would be great. But the merits of the development (which are considerable) should be irrelevant with the decision being made solely in compliance with planning policy and regulations. If I were a Councillor on the Planning Committee, I don't think I would take too kindly to have my mail box full of pleas to ignore the advice of the professional planners because of the perceived benefits. It certainly won't help the relationship between the Club and the Planning department. It's a bit like having a goal being ruled offside and arguing with the referee that it should be awarded in spite of it maybe being marginally offside, because it was a good move and deserved a goal. I agree that the planners are probably most concerned about the loss of open space. Again, one can understand that the project only impinges on a tiny proportion of the open space in and around the city. However, if a precedent is set with this, the Council might find themselves under significant pressure to allow other projects on designated open space. For the sake of the Club and all the good community work the Club does, I sincerely hope the project does get passed. If it doesn't, I won't be too surprised. If it doesn't, someone at the club will have some explaining to do.
  16. At the last Club AGM, a combination of the BESS system and the opportunities resulting from the stadium being within the new Cromarty Firth Freeport zone were cited as being the things which allowed the accounts to be approved on a going concern basis. In other words, these 2 factors were seen as crucial to the long term future of the club. However, the Club Chairman told the recent Supporters Trust meeting that he was struggling to see any way in which the Club could possibly benefit from the Freeport status. So yes, eggs very much in one basket. He freely admitted that if the BESS project does not get the go ahead then we will be continuing to rely on the largesse of the Directors for a sizeable proportion of the income required to keep us as a competitive full time club. I'm not sure that the Club have any more rabbits they can pull out of their hats in order to diversify the Clubs income streams. It's all very worrying indeed.
  17. Thanks RiG. Having looked up ICT Battery Storage Ltd at Companies House, I see the Directors of the company are Ross Morrison and David Cameron. It is a company limited by share holding. There is just 1 share allocated which is owned by the football club. But this doesn't explain where the money is coming from. It will not be the club that is paying for all the capital cost of the development. Presumably that is where ILI come in and they clearly will need a return on their investment.
  18. We are being told that if this development goes ahead, it will secure the long term financial stability of the club. Frankly, I haven't a clue how this will generate the amount of money which would achieve that. I get that the land is owned by one of the Directors of the Club (or one of his companies), but can anyone explain how much money this is projected to generate for the club and what exactly it is for? There must be more to it than a bit of rent for site.
  19. I see our CEO has been quoted in the "Courier" as referring to the development as a "Battery Farm". I trust he is aware it is for a Battery Energy Storage Facility and not a Battery Farm with Big Sheds full of hens. That really would be putting all our eggs in one basket.
  20. I've started another topic specifically on the battery project now that the Chairman has posted a statement on the Club's website. What is important in relation to his attendance at the ST meeting last Saturday is that apart from talking about the battery project, he said he was really struggling to see how there was any way the Club could benefit from being located in the free port zone. That being the case, it would seem that the only prospect of the club getting more money in, over and above what the footballing side of things generates and continuing bailing out by the directors, is the battery project.
  21. https://ictfc.com/club-statement-17/ Hers's a statement by the chairman on the recommendation to refuse the planning application. It includes a link to a video he has made with a message to the Councillors. Clearly whether it goes ahead or not will have a significant bearing on the viability of the club.
  22. It's a tick box exercise to pretend we have an SLO. Gordon doesn't remotely perform the recognised functions of the role. With Robbo's departure, presumably the CEO will have even less time to address the concerns of fans. But this gives the club a real opportunity as there is the potential to reallocate some of Robbo's salary to a dedicated SLO. Even if on a part time basis with some volunteer support, there is so much an SLO could do in liaising with the fans and addressing some of the many issues identified by the Supporters Trust's Matchday Experience survey. Not only were a lot of issues identified, but respondents made a lot of very constructive suggestions too. All it requires is a bit of vision and a bit of common sense on behalf of the club. OK. So it's not going to happen.
  23. HT. 1-0 FT. 2-1 ICT. Shaw Opp. Dowds Crowd 2261
  24. HT. 1-0 FT. 3-1 ICT. Nathan Shaw DU. Fotheringham Crowd. 8311
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy