DoofersDad

HT. 0-1

FT. 1-2

ICT. Alex Samuel

QP. Paton

Crowd 1667

Joker 

6 hours ago, MacOne said:

It feels like we are trying to get a say in the music to be played on the Titanic.  I want to be wrong, but the finances are an existential issue for the club and it's future, and regardless of the make up of the board things are not good. There is little point on being on the board of a sinking ship and I think the influence of a fans representative is overstated.  The ship needs to be sailing in the right direction before any of this is relevant, though I do applaud the Supporter Trust for their energy and commitment.  

I see what the Supporters Trust is doing more as trying to help get the ship sailing in the right direction.   Surely it is the responsibility of the Trust to do what it can to help the Club avoid disaster?  If the Club went into receivership and the Trust had sat back and done nothing, those who are now questioning the Trust would be the first to question why the Trust had not done anything.  Let's be clear here.  This is about supporters supporting the Club.  It is not about supporting the people who are currently running the Club.

Whether we stay up or go down, we are going to have to cut costs next season.  The Chairman has already said the current player budget is unsustainable.  In previous years, the Club's annual financial statement always states that being active in the transfer market is a key source of income to keep the club as a going concern.  In reality we have actually sold relatively few players in recent years, but this year I expect the Board will be looking at moving contracted players on and get something for them, unless they are keen to stay and take a wage cut.  Hopefully we will secure 8th place or better which, not only will secure Championship football for next season, but will allow the Board to start its financial restructuring ASAP.  

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Some context to both the above.

The comment about being a property business was in relation to the club not being able to generate enough income from footballing activities to sustain a full time team, along with other current activities such as the Academy. By using its assets to generate income it can do so. I’m sure the Chairman said previously the club now owned the ground, opening up opportunities like Red John.

On the Battery Farm, the intended purchaser has walked away due to the delays. The Chairman said that a replacement will not be hard to find, but there may be a reduction in value due to changes in the market. However it remains very sellable as it has a grid connection which can be used next year, with most schemes apparently 2027 or later. 

The focus needs to be on a well run football club supported by other commercial activity.  Improving facilities at the stadium, for instance, will allow for income from conferences etc.  It would be helpful if the Chairman could specify exactly what land the club now owns as that would allow others to put forward some ideas about how the land could be used to the benefit of the club.  Perhaps the Trust would be able to formally ask for that information to be made public?

I'm a bit concerned that if the BESS site is still very saleable, why the original company has walked away.  Even with the delay, they would be able to have the facility up and running well before any alternative site.  Perhaps it is their view that the Scottish Government is likely to uphold the Council's decision, so best to walk away ASAP and look elsewhere? It also suggests that the contract allowed them to walk away.  That being the case, it was even more important for ILI and the Club to do their homework properly and make sure the application went through first time.  They did, after all, have about 3 years or so to get it right.

I think what is maybe missing here is a clear understanding of where we are in terms of supporter influence on club decisions and where we aspire to be.  It seems to me that the recent Trust announcement is more about how we get from where we are to where we want to be.  If there is a lack of clarity on where points A & B are, then clearly there is going to be a bit of confusion about merits of a scheme to get us from A to B.

So, where exactly are we?  This is the easy bit.  Despite the best efforts of the Supporters Trust over many years, engagement between Club and Trust has been poor to non-existent.  There are now encouraging signs that the Club is more willing to engage.  Whilst it is really inappropriate for a Club Director to be assigned as SLO, Scott Young does seem keen to engage constructively.  It is also very encouraging that the Club Chairman has attended the Trust's open meetings.   

Where we want to get to with supporter influence in the running of the club is not so easy.  It is a long term goal of the Trust to have an elected fans' representative on the Club Board.  I support that and would hope the vast majority of fans would too.  Some might want to go further and say the best option for the long term security of the club would be for it to be primarily fan owned.  On the other hand, if we had a Club Board and CEO that routinely involved fans' representatives on a range of working groups on a wide range of issues and which delivered on the issues that were important to fans, then people might not feel the need for Board representation at all.  

To a large extent therefore, where we might want to be in terms of supporter involvement in the running of the Club, will be dependent on how the Club Board manages affairs over the years.  That being the case, I think what the Trust Board is proposing makes absolute sense.

I've not spoken to any of the Trust Board about this, but the way I see it is that building up a fund with which it can buy shares whenever it sees fit, provides a dual purpose.  Firstly, it allows the Trust to increase its shareholding and therefore increase (albeit not by much) its voting power.  Secondly, and much more importantly to my mind, It can buy those shares on condition that the money is put towards specific projects important to fans.

I see this as part of the ongoing journey of improved collaboration between Club and supporters.  Supporters will know they can donate money to the Club via the Trust in the knowledge it won't be spent on a new drinks cabinet in the Boardroom.  The Club will know that money will come from the fans provided they engage properly with the Supporter's Trust.  There is therefore a clear incentive on both sides to work together.

In the longer term, the route to a fan's representative on the Club Board is most likely to come as a result of a recognition by the Board that a fan's representative would help the work of the Board.  If that didn't happen, then getting a representative on the Board via a shareholders meeting would be an appropriate route.  But even then, persuading other shareholders of the case would be more important than the voting power of the Trust.  Realistically, we are not going to raise enough to ever have anything close to a voting majority.  

There is therefore absolutely no point in setting any targets about how much should be raised or how many shares the Trust should have.  The scheme will have its own momentum influenced by a range of factors.  One of these is the amount people donate and another is the extent to which the Club start to work with the Trust.  Another important aspect is how the fans engage in helping with the work the Trust.  A handful of willing volunteers on the Trust Board can't be expected to do everything.  We're all in this together and, as the title says, we're stronger together.

Another way fans can help to increase the Trust's shareholdings is to bequeath their shareholding to the the Trust.  Let's face it, many shareholders (myself included) are getting to the age where the beneficiaries of their wills may well be benefitting sooner rather than later.

Good to experience that winning feeling again. Having said that, we did make life difficult for ourselves by not capitalising on our first half dominance. Let’s face it, Arbroath were awful. On a day made for shooting from distance, we were again generally shot shy. Hopefully others will take a cue from the excellent Alex Samuel. 
The one disappointing thing for me today was that despite some good noisy support from the North stand, only Ridgers and Samuel could be bothered to come anywhere near the fans at the end.  Given the cheers and prolonged applause which followed the final whistle I would have thought the guys would have been keen to have some positive interaction with the home crowd for a change. Maybe most of them are not expecting to be here next season. 
 

We’ve been the dominant team but may regret only scoring one with the wind behind us. 

The wind should be a great leveler.  We may actually get something out of the game.

HT. 1-0

FT. 2-0

ICT. Billy Mckay

Arb.  McKenna

Crowd. 2011

Joker 

We simply have to beat them on Saturday.  Failing to do so would still have Queens Park in the driving seat for safety even if we beat them the following week.  Queens also still have Arbroath to play.  We need 6 points from our next 2 games or the only way we will avoid the play offs will be by finishing bottom.  

On 3/31/2024 at 11:42 AM, old caley girl said:

I'm told it paid off directors loans? 

I wonder when the Scottish Cup bonus would have been paid to the club?  Elsewhere on here, there has been discussion about the secured loans from Ross Morrison and Allan Munro which were filed on 21st December.  If the cup bonus was used to pay off loans, then it sounds as though these would have been loans made before the Charges filed at Companies House.  If that is the case, then it suggests that we have been funded by huge loans (albeit unsecured) for longer than I had realised.  The secured loans presumably remain to be paid off regardless of the outcome of any appeal / legal action following on from the Highland Council's recent decision.  It all points to the club's current level of expenditure being totally unsustainable.

I would be intrigued to know exactly what motivated Ferguson to take the job.  I agree with IHE that he has been up against it from the off - so why take the job on?  O.K. he would be looking for a position where he would have the potential to get some success at a lower level and improve his managerial credentials, but what made him think the ICT job was it?  It seemed pretty clear that when he first arrived here, he knew precious little about the club and the Scottish Championship more generally, so I can only assume that he was tempted by promises of significant resources for new players on the back of the Battery project which, he would have been told, was a certainty to go through.  Keeping us up this year and then challenging hard for promotion the following 2 seasons would be something which would raise his stock.  He'll be all too well aware now that things at the club are not quite what he was led to believe when he signed his contract.

Obviously it is rubbish when he says the team were "brilliant".  He knows and we all know that it's nonsense, but I would prefer that to him publicly slagging the team off.  Do we really want him to behave like Derek Adams?  I'm far from convinced about his style of play and his tactics, but I do have a bit of sympathy for him.  Other teams have been able to strengthen their squads in the January window.  We did not have that luxury and added to that, we have been hard hit with injuries.  We have one of the poorest squads in the club's history and that is not Ferguson's fault.  I think the guys on the pitch are putting in a good shift and doing the best they can for the manager.  I am sure we would be isolated with Arbroath at the bottom if Dodds was still here.

Dig Dunc may not be the greatest of managers and the squad may not be as good as we would like, but they are not the ones who are responsible for the mess the club is in.  If we are to avoid relegation we need to put a good string of results.  To achieve that the guys on the pitch need the fans to get behind them and give support rather than criticism.  Let's support the team and point the finger of blame to where it rightly belongs.

HT.  1-0

FT.  3-0

ICT. Pepple

PT. Graham

Crowd. 3311

If we can't sign him for that reason, one has to ask why he was here in the first place - apart from the point that if he isn't good enough for Forfar, why would anyone think he was good enough for us?

8 hours ago, Yngwie said:

My understanding is that in a CVL the liquidator is supposed to have filed a Statement of Affairs that would have detailed all this and I can’t know why that hasn’t happened other than an oversight on his part? The statement of affairs should also have been sent out to the creditors.

Maybe he's not documented it because there is no money left to pay him for doing the extra work.

It must be absolutely galling for the the creditors to be told there is no money to pay them for the work they did, when the lead director of the Concert Company continues to put money into the football club and, presumably, make money with his other business interests.  It might be legal, but it ain't right.  It certainly isn't a good way to get the wider Inverness business community behind the club.

3 hours ago, wilsywilsy said:

This is false equivelance. Is that statistically plausible when there's probably more houses in Dingwall (apparently they have some) than there are BESS installations around the world?

You may not have realised that sadly a man died in a house fire in Dingwall last month. 

ht. 2-0

ft. 3-1

ICT. Billy Mckay

Utd. Moult

crowd. 7654

9 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

You do realise that, whatever you think of his abilities, getting rid of our Chairman any time soon would equate to switching off our life support machine?!

 

But he appears to be a big part of the reason why we are on a life support machine in the first place.

He seems to be giving every indication that he thinks it was mistake coming here.  Whatever division we are in next season, I doubt big Dunc will be the manager.

12 hours ago, STFU said:

They don't need a legal case for appeal, it is their right to do.  Just as it was the Highland Council's right to call the decision in to full committee.

The 'side case' of taking legal action for corruption (which seems to be the jist of Gardiner's allegations) may actually delay any appeal if Scottish Government don't want to get involved while that's going on.

On the other hand, if the applicants can identify a strong legal case then the Scottish Government may feel that granting the appeal quickly would prevent an embarrassing court case.  Either way, the shenanigans at the council will give the applicants options about the next steps.  

Of course, we need to bear in mind, that whilst getting the planning permission is vital to the finances of the club, they are not the only players with an interest here.  ILI and whatever company it is who would actually build and operate the BESS will have a big say in the next steps.  Obviously it is all just speculation on our behalf and we have no idea of the detail of what the details of the contractual arrangements are between the interested parties.

I should add here that I have maybe been a little unfair in my earlier criticism of the club with regard to the weaknesses in the application.  ILI and the prospective operator are the experts in this area and are the ones who should have the experience to get it right and to anticipate likely barriers to approval.  But given the risk to the club of the project not going ahead, the club clearly has a responsibility to make sure the application is watertight and they have failed in that.

Terry Butcher was a guest of the club today.  Did I miss something or was he not invited out and introduced to the fans?  I was rather looking forward to giving him a good round of applause as a "thank you" for some of the best and most exciting football we've seen in the 30 year history of the club.

A lovely day for a game of football but the storm clouds are gathering around the stadium.  On the whole, I think the players put a lot of effort in and tried their best, but the sad fact is, that as a group, they just aren't good enough.  Again we started brightly and with a bit more quality could have been 2 up in the first 15 minutes.  Ayr were no great shakes, but once they settled into the game, we rarely found any space where it mattered.  

There are times when we pass the ball neatly in midfield and keep possession, but when we get into the final third and and are put under more pressure, we either lose the ball or pass it back.  We create very little.  It is clear that Fergusson has his preferred way of playing and he ain't going to change it.  He wants us to play out from the back and through the park.  It's brilliant to watch when Manchester City do it, but with all due respect to our lads, they don't have the vision or skill to do it.  Time and time again we start to play out from the back and are just too slow to make progress, we allow the opposition to regroup and organise their defence and we can't find a way through.  It's just boring.

Different rules for different meetings it seems.  There appears to be plenty in all these machinations for the Club and Partners' legal team to explore in making their case for appeal.  

8 hours ago, lightlamp2 said:

The club did address the green space issue. It takes up 2 percent of the total space of an overgrown and unkempt field of grass. It also results in a net biodiversity gain. The judgement call was left up to councillors as to whether kids using their sledges in winter was more valuable than 3 and a half million for a local business, 125K business rates for the council. And contribution towards net zero. 

I'm sorry, but you are completely missing the point here.  The club only addressed this issue after the planning committee's 3-2 vote in favour had been taken back to the whole council.  At the time, I commented on this and said that the net biodiversity gain should be enough to justify the loss of the small amount of loss of green space.  I commended the Chairman on that more focussed and restrained statement.

The point is, that the club and its partners had not made the biodiversity argument earlier.  One of the earlier concerns of the planning department was concerns from the ecology officer about the loss of biodiversity.  That concern was very simply resolved by a commitment to plant more trees and shrubs. Problem solved with a 30 second thought process!  After a 30 month planning process for a development which they knew the planners would not support because of the green space issue, it simply beggars belief that the simple solution of planting a range of trees and shrubs on the site was not a key part of the original application.

Having said that, I absolutely agree that the sledging and dog walking arguments were incredibly weak.  Arguments around business rates etc were simply not relevant to planning and were an unnecessary distraction.