DoofersDad

In addition, we have yet to gain a single point from the 80th minute onwards. If those stats were reversed, we would be right up in the title mix. Clearly it is something the coaching staff need to think about. In one way it seems surprising because we do keep possession reasonably well and that should serve us well when defending a lead (or a draw). I think there are 2 issues here. Firstly, our ability to keep the ball and good defensive shape breaks down when opponents take a few more risks and press us harder when they are looking to score late on. Secondly, when we need to do the pressing, we simply haven't got what it takes in the final third.

We played very well in 2/3 of the pitch but were woeful up front. I just don't get the negativity of the approach. It is as though the tactic is to pass to feet through the defence for a final tap in for a goal. That is never going to happen. When Longstaff first came here, he looked like an exciting player who would take defenders on and have a pop at goal. It seems that was coached out of him by Dodds and that is continuing under Fergusson. Time and time again both he and Harper had the ball wide and had the chance either to take the defender on or to play a ball into the space behind the defender and just about every time they cut inside and played a safe ball square or backwards. I'm not for a minute suggesting a gung ho approach, but we do urgently need to introduce a bit more positivity in our forward play. By far the most positive thing on the night for this old codger was the brilliant support from the youngsters in section E. For a change there was some real atmosphere in the ground which made the rather boring fare on the park seem somewhat more exciting than it really was. I'm sure the team really appreciated it too. Well done guys!

Because by definition a "crowd" or "attendance" is the number of people who actually turn up to the event. The number of tickets sold is something different. If you buy a ticket and don't go, you are not part of the crowd.

Are you sure that wasn't the County bus you were on?

I seem to recall it was a deliberate decision to have the names of Thistle and Caledonian in a different order in the Club and team names. This was an attempt to show that both of the former clubs were of equal importance to the new club. The team is simply a brand of the club and therefore doesn't need to be the same. Now that the club is running the women's team, they are another brand of the club. The women's team could have been called Highland women and still been an integral part of the club without any of the names "Inverness", "Thistle" or "Caledonian" being in the team's name.

Was it just coincidence that Welsh started and Mckay didn't, but that when Welsh was subbed at HT, Mckay just happens to be brought on as a replacement for Davidson at the same time? Are there some issues around the captaincy? We are in desperate need of good leadership on the park. Regardless of whether we can bring in 2 or 3 new players, the key thing is to get to the current squad to play with greater purpose and cohesion. A good captain will be an example on the park and will demand the appropriate response from his team-mates. I'm not seeing any real leadership on the park this season and that needs to change.

It was striking that in his interview before last nights game, he was talking about having already identified some players he wants to bring in and hoping the club will support him. If specific players have been identified, you would have thought that he would have informed the club of that and that the club would have told him whether or not he had their support. Even if no specific players had been identified, he should know the financial limit he has to work with. It sounds to me as though the players Dunc wants to bring in will cost more than the club have told them is available. It reminds me of the demands Yogi put on the club regarding new players and extended contracts for players he wanted to keep. Blinded by the euphoria of the Scottish Cup win, the club overstretched itself in meeting Yogi's demands. That debacle created a serious black hole in the club's finances from which, years later, we have still not even started to recover. I would like to think that the club have identified some funding which will help in strengthening the team and that the manager is accepting of what he has been told is available. I suspect the reality may be somewhat different.

I'm not sure Uncle Roy will be too pleased with his "new" manager but I enjoyed his rant. But the thing is, he seems to be surprised at the standard of Scottish football on his return. He's been at County before and has surely been keeping tabs on what's been happening up here. To imply he had no idea how bad the standard is suggests he hasn't done his homework and it is disrespectful to everyone at County. He says there needs to be a clear out in January, but with him in charge, I guess there will be a queue of players at the door anxious to leave.

I'll give some credit to Arbroath here. They played pretty well and closed us down very well indeed. They kept a very disciplined narrow, high line and we simply lacked the inventiveness, skill and pace to deal with it. When we did get through or round them, it was noticeable how often a defender managed to block the cross. The resulting corners rarely provided the Arbroath defence any problems. There were a few good passing movements but we lacked the final cutting edge. As we have seen time and time again this season, there is a reluctance to have a shot at goal and a lack of conviction when we do. Gaston had very little to do, but when he did get the ball, he held on to it as long as he could. In the first half, Ujdur simply couldn't cope with Hylton, so replacing him and bringing Longstaff on made sense. I'm surprised though that Big Dunc waited so late before making other changes, but that was maybe because he didn't think anyone on the bench would do any better than those already on it. Hopefully we will pick up a gear when Welsh and MacGregor are back to fitness, but the sad fact is that at the moment, we are just not very good.

I agree with Big Dunc. It is what it is.

Hmm. I must have missed the communication about that.

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!

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.

Now that we've lost a game, at least it means Big Dunc can wear a jacket at the next match.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Nice idea. And build a stadium that is actually fit for purpose on a more appropriate site?

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.

Sorry, Charles. Can't help you out on any of this. Have you tried emailing the SLO?

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.

I'm glad I didn't go. I'd probably have had a heart attack and wouldn't be here now.

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.

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.