DoofersDad

A very interesting move down South with Marvin Johnston moving from Oxford to Middlesbrough for an undisclosed fee thought to be somewhere between £2-3million. The interesting bit is that when Motherwell sold Johnson to Oxford they apparently managed to include a 25% sell on clause. That means that Motherwell will now get up to £750,000 in their coffers for a player who isn't on their books. That is good business. With our fan base, we are always going to have to accept that when players develop here they will be looking to move on. It should perhaps be a policy for the Board to look to include a sizeable sell on clause when selling younger players with the potential to develop further.

You are wrong. Aberdeen, Motherwell and County for example, were all formed from mergers albeit in the dim and distant past. ICT is perhaps the only one in living memory but (I think it important to note) not in the living memory of a significant and growing percentage of our supporters. Nobody is trying to ignore the past. Far from it - I think the past should be celebrated. But it needs to be celebrated in the right context. As someone with no particular affiliation to either of the pre-merger clubs the fixation some folk seem to have with the club favouring the legacy of one of the old clubs or the other is like a millstone round the neck of the club. It is a bit like a 23 year old still living at home, being expected to ask his or her parents' permission before they can do anything and always being known as their parents' child rather than a person in their own right. Good parents let their children go and allow them to develop their own identities.

I think last season he often played when he was injured and that resulted in some performances below the level you would normally expect from him. Don't forget that he started the season well and featured well in the POTY polls. I certainly wouldn't criticise him for last year, but this year is quite a different matter.

The sad thing is that the young crew bring a lot of much needed enthusiasm and atmosphere to the crowd when they behave within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. When they do that, they have great fun, the rest of the fans enjoy the atmosphere they create and the guys on the park appreciate the support. But there will always be a small minority who either have no idea where the boundaries are or a simply hell bent on causing trouble for some reason or other. When they do that, there are others who either follow like sheep or join in because they aren't mature enough to resit the peer pressure. The more sensible lads then stay away because they don't want to get sucked into any trouble. Get rid of the tiny number of ring leaders, the sensible ones will return. Keep the behaviour within the boundaries and everyone's a winner. But just to get a bit of balance here, it is not just the young lads whose behaviour is not always within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Some of the abuse shouted at players, officials and opposition fans by much older fans would get them evicted if they behaved like that in their care homes. It is not a good example. When some of our more senior fans behave in such a disrespectful way and escape any kind of censure, is it any wonder that the youngsters choose to break through the boundaries too?

There are more important things to address in the immediate future but I must admit I have a lot of sympathy for what you are saying. Whilst not wishing to belittle the achievements of the 2 former clubs or to underestimate the place they have in the hearts and memories of those who supported them, one does sometimes wonder when ICT will ever be seen by some as a club in it's own rights rather than as a hybrid of two now defunct clubs. Whilst the creation of our club is a fairly recent thing, we are far from being the only club in the Scottish League set up that has been formed as a result of a merger. There is nothing obvious in the names and stadia of those clubs that attempts to preserve the identity of the old clubs in the new and we should be no different. Perhaps with the club's 25th anniversary approaching that will be the opportunity to finally give the club an identity wholly of it's own. It would also be a good opportunity to establish a club museum where all the memorabilia from Caledonian and Thistle which Caman refers to could be proudly displayed.

It is true that a lot of players and the team as a whole get judged on their last performance. All players have games when they are significantly better or worse in one game than their usual level. I think the situation with Polworth may be different though. He was actually better against Morton as well as the Brechin game. With the introduction of Trafford, the manager has put him playing in front of Trafford and Vigurs and this is freeing him up to do what he does best. In addition, Trafford looks to have a more positive mindset than Draper and the ball is being played to Polworth where he likes it. I'm optimistic that the improvement in Polworth in the last 2 games is here to stay.

Thanks, Liz. That's a very encouraging response. I think folk need to take particular note of Liz's statement that she only joined the Board last year and therefore she should not be held accountable for any shortcomings people may perceive in CJTs activities in recent years. Full marks to Liz for being prepared to take on the difficult work involved in trying to get CJT up and running again. She deserves our support for taking this on. We really need to put any failings of the past well and truly behind us. It is in the interest of any football club to have an active and representative fans group, but particularly so for ICT as we have the gift of a 10% voting stake in the affairs of the club. But a successful and representative supporters group requires much more than the hard work of a small handful of people who are willing to give up their own free time. It needs fans of all ages and backgrounds to do their bit. Whether it is simply clicking on the agree or disagree button on a proposal posted on line, or standing for the Board, or a host of things in between, we all have it in our power to help make CJT the success it needs to be in order to help the club achieve the success we would all like it to achieve.

I have no problem with OFW holding out until he gets a contract he feels is right for him. However, until then, he has a contract with us and it is reasonable to expect him to play for us if the manager asks him to. If he keeps saying he's picked up a niggle in training the day before a game then increasingly other clubs are not going to offer him a new contract. His behaviour is bizarre and self destructive.

Fair comment. I agree that it would have been better had it happened at the other end of the park - but it's still funny!

It ought to be, but all too often that is not the case. It depends what clauses are in the contract. The contract needs to assume that the employee is far from the person you think they are when you first employ them. One gets the impression that some recent contracts have not been too clever in this regard. It's bit like a pre nuptial agreement. It might seem rather contrary to the spirit in which you enter a relationship, but without one you can find yourself in big trouble if things don't work out.

I know that Don has made strong criticism of CJT previously. I am not particularly bothered about the history of the organisation but I am concerned about the future. The club is going through a critical rebuilding phase and there is a potential for some close shareholder votes which might shape the future of the club. If CJ T has a 10% voting stake then it is essential that the legitimacy of CJT to use that vote is beyond challenge both from a legal standpoint and in its representation of the fans views. It is clear that currently CJ T fails on both counts. It is therefore essential that the work Liz refers to addresses the points Don makes and we need an early and detailed response to his points to ensure that the functionality of CJT satisfies the legal requirements. Beyond that, we need to ensure CJT has mechanisms in place which actively seek the views of its members. Whether that is done by current CJT Board members or by a new Board will depend on the willingness of others to put their names forward to serve. It is always easy to criticise others, but a lot harder to actually do the work yourself. If supporters want the 10% voting stake retained then it is up to us all to play our part in ensuring that the future CJT Board fulfills its obligations better than it has in the past.

love it!

What is OFW up to? At the Q&A session Robbo said that OFW had received several offers but has turned them all down. Seemingly he wants a move to the States. He has been asked to play for us on a couple of occasions but apparently picked up injuries in training the days before. He had however told the Welsh management that he was fit for the World Cup qualifiers. (Robbo kept a straight face when telling us this - well, almost). It now turns out that he's not been selected for the squad! FFS. If he wants to be choosy about a contract and if he wants to play for his country, then he needs to prove on the park that he is worth it. If he is not playing, then he'll be lucky to be offered a contract any better than Ridgers has got with us. Currently, that is more than he deserves.

It was evident from the meeting that Danny is the right man to be the COO. He can talk for heifer and heifer!

No. I do not think that they are not signed up to the new Chairman's approach. I simply do not know. I am not casting aspersions, I am simply pointing out that those Board members who were there last night and who were on the Board during the Cameron era, simply did not engage. It was up to them to provide the evidence that they were fully supportive of the new Chairman's approach and they failed to take the opportunity to do so. Hopefully they will provide evidence of their proactive support for the Chairman's approach in the near future. Fan representation on the Board was not specifically raised. The Chairman said early on that he had already had discussions with some people about improved channels of communication with the fans. I am sure his thoughts on this will be communicated soon and that would presumably indicate an appropriate route to raise the issue of fan representation on the Board. I absolutely agree with you that it seems like a good idea.

At last night's meeting, John Robertson gave some interesting comments around the signing of players and his attitude towards developing the youngsters. Firstly, on the negative side, he echoed the Chairman's earlier comments about the budget being around £1 million less than last year. That obviously makes recruitment difficult when current players are already on relatively high earnings. Location is also a major problem and he said that there had been several players who had turned down offers because they wanted to stay in the central belt where there would be numerous clubs in commuting distance of where they live. He mentioned one that signed for a Division 1 side rather than move. He says that he has been helped by a scouting network he has. He talked about the mental fragility of a lot of players. They are nervous about making mistakes and he used this to explain why the team seemed to lose a bit of their drive once we got into the the lead against Morton. It was far removed from complacency or sitting back and defending the lead; what I understood he was saying was that players get anxious when they get into the lead because they will be criticised more for not winning if the have gone into the lead first. This perhaps highlights both a nervousness about the expectations of results here and, on a personal level, the fact that for many of our players, they know they need to succeed here for their careers to develop. Related to that, he talked briefly about the difference between what he sees on the training ground and what happens on the park. I guess the unsaid message there was for the fans to go easy on some of the players because he knows what they are capable of, and having fans on their backs all the time just piles more pressure on them makes it more difficult for them to perform to the level they do in training. His attitude to youth follows on from that. "if they are good enough, they are old enough" is what he said. He explained why he was keen on getting the kids out on loan to HL clubs and supportive of the idea of getting a colts team in the HL. He is wanting to toughen the kids up and put them under pressure by playing with men in games that really matter. He said that a few of the new recruits (Calder, Elsdon, Chalmers - I think, and maybe others) had never played a first team match before they came here! Think about it! What a culture shock it must be to find yourself in front of a vocal crowd and see your name in the paper as making a mistake that cost your team the game. These new recruits need time to get used to these new pressures and he is confident that as they do, they will develop well. Similarly, getting that first team experience rather then playing in the development league will toughen the kids up and make them ready mentally for first team football when they are good enough to be picked. It all made a lot of sense to me. Danny spoke really enthusiastically about how good some of the young kids coming through are. There does seem to have been a bit of a disconnect in recent years and lads seemed to have moved on elsewhere, but he felt there were several lads who should be good enough to feature before too long. This was echoed by the manager who suggested that for a couple, this may be as soon as next match! It was all fascinating and largely encouraging stuff. But for me, the message to fans has to be that many of our young players (and by young I don't mean just the teenagers) are very nervous and seriously lacking in confidence. They desperately need our support and our patience.

If a have a concern about last night's meeting it was the failure of any of the other Board members to engage. The new Chairman spoke well and enthusiastically but he is just one member of the Board. Others on the panel were on the Board at the time when the decisions which got us into the mess we are now in were made. Even just a brief few words from one of them acknowledging that mistakes were made, that lessons have been learned and that the Board is fully behind the approach outlined by the Chairman would surely not have been difficult. As it was, the Chairman did the apologising on their behalf and he wasn't even on the Board when those decisions were made and when core activities were being neglected. There were issues raised and the Chairman responded that he couldn't really comment as he didn't know, but would look into and get back to the questioner. Other Board members have been here long enough to have had knowledge of the issues and should have been able to speak up and comment. What was the point of them being there if all they offered was a wall of silence? The way forward outlined by the Chairman was good, but it is not going to happen unless the whole Board are signed up to that approach. I saw no evidence that this was the case. It might have been good, for example to have individual Board members taking responsibility for overseeing some particular area of activity and taking the lead on the discussion related to that. We all know that despite his faults, Kenny Cameron lived and breathed this football club and worked tremendously hard for the club. One suspects that other Board members were happy to let him get on with it. Hopefully the new Chairman will insist on other Board members taking a bit more responsibility and showing a much more public face and public buy in to the more progressive agenda. In Graham Rae, Danny MacDonald and John Robertson we have a great team of leaders to see us pick up the pieces and move on. They need and deserve the support of the entire Board. That support may be there, but it was not in evidence last night.

An interesting and very well attended evening with the Q&A session going on more than an hour after the advertised finish time. The new Chairman came across pretty well. He seems enthusiastic for the future of the club but is clear in the basic principle that we cannot spend more than is coming in. This year's budget is over £1 million down on last year so nobody is under any illusion of the scale of the task ahead. COO and the Manager spoke well and were pretty honest in their responses. The 3 of them all seemed to be singing from the same hymn sheet. Lots of assurances about better communication, improvements to the ground, club website, match day experience etc. Promise to hold similar meeting in future when they well report back on the progress made and also meetings where people will be invited to bring ideas which can be discussed. Of course, it is easy to say what the right things but it is not so easy to carry things through into actions. Sounds promising though. Very interesting comments from Robbo on various topics which are discussed in this forum. No doubt others will pick up on some of the detail in the relevant threads.

Liam Molesworth is now playing for another Midland League Premier Division side, Coleshill Town. He scored the winner yesterday in their 4-3 FA Cup win against his former club, Bromsgrove Sporting. Sporting was the side he was with when he came on trial up here. It was one of several good goals in the game and can be seen here This is worth watching not just for Molesworth's goal (and others) but to illustrate the kind of video service a 9th tier English club can provide to its fans. It is also evident that they have a better PA system than us!

It was a strange game. We looked pretty bright early on and were good value for our lead. There was a positive attitude and a willingness to take players on and shoot at goal. A goal should have settled a few nerves and given us a bit of confidence but it seemed to have the exact opposite effect. Perhaps a centre back scoring brought home to others in the team how inadequate they are in the goal scoring department. In many ways it was quite an entertaining game and the scoreline probably reflected the lack of quality in front of goal in both sides. Minus points. Raven didn't start. The lack of confidence throughout the team is palpable. Although he had another decent game, Vigurs was in a petulant mood: he fully deserved his booking and was lucky the referee didn't show the card earlier. Seedorf does not look like a right back - plenty of promise as an attacking midfielder though. Baird doesn't have the sharpness that once made him a reasonable striker: he looks unlikely to score half a dozen all season. After a reasonable start, the referee increasingly looked like he had money on a Morton win - some strange decisions. Plus points. Trafford looks like a proper player - if he can stay fit he could be a good replacement for Draper. Chalmers played significantly better than I have seen him before and showed some pretty good awareness on occasions; as he and the team settle, I think he could be pretty solid defensively. Bell looks way more lively than Baird - he looks as though he will harry defenders into making mistakes and he looks as though he has a sharper eye for goal - I'd like to see him start. Mulraney put in a couple of decent crosses and had a generally more mature performance when he came on. On a more general point, we had players finding space in the middle (as well as wider) and carrying the ball into the danger area much more than I can remember for a while. OK, we didn't do too much with the ball when we did get forward because there was either a lack of willingness to shoot, or there was a misunderstanding between the player with the ball and those running into space. But if we keep playing with that positive attitude, the goals will follow.

If people consider that he is not good enough for a team that gets relegated from the Premiership, then you cannot argue that he is good enough to get us back into the Premiership. Whatever my views may or may not be about whether he is good enough for the premiership, he is certainly good enough to ensure we don't slip further down the leagues. Hopefully he will be back very soon and stay fit.

Well, if he doesn't know, then CJT won't be getting their voting papers, so it won't matter who they support!

Yet last season people were saying Warren was too slow and questioning his place in the side with McCart and Laing available - yet we still got relegated. Now nobody is saying anything other than he is the cornerstone of our defence. It's an illustration of how weak folk perceive our defence to be and of how serious our plight is.

I have no idea what the differences are between these various "factions". However, if representatives of any of them offered to wine and dine me and make their pitch, I would be willing to consider pledging my 750 shares to their cause.

And with regard to those shares (which you explained are "non voting shares", are they included within the calculation of the total number of shares on which any calculation of what % support the different factions may have? Similarly (but working in the opposite direction) if CJT have a 10% vote then the effective number of votes for voting purposes needs to be increased by 10%. In other words, calculations on the number of votes available will be the number of voting shares + 10%. If new shares are issued in line with the recent EGM vote, then the figure would increase by the number of those shares +10%.