DoofersDad

Thanks Charles. That certainly clarifies a few things for me.

Is it correct that CJT aka ICT Supporters Society have 10% of voting rights with roughly 0.4% of the shares? The ICT Trust is the body with the large amount of shares (18.7% of the total) but that is not a supporters body. Also, I note that 300,000 are apparently owned by "Inverness Thistle". Who controls those?

Just because it should have happened in January doesn't mean we shouldn't embrace it now. The Chairman in January is no longer on the Board and the new Chairman who has sent out the invitation was not on the Board in January. It is clean slate time. It is time to all come together, accept that we are where we are and work cooperatively in order to restore a bit of pride in the club.

This just seems to get more and more confusing. The Companies House info lists "Inverness Caledonian Thistle Supporters Society" as owning 13,408 shares and "Inverness Caledonian Thistle Trust" a rather more significant 729,500. Who are these bodies? Charles refers to a "Supporters Trust" but neither of these bodies seem to fit the description. Companies House has a separate listing for the ICT Trust which has the big shareholding. The last annual Trustees Report defines the Trust's objectives as "to support sport in general in the Inverness and Highland Area". Under "Achievements and Performance" the report states "During the year, the charity was dormant". The four Trustees are listed as Allan Sellar, David Sutherland, David Stewart MSP and a R.M. Smith. Since that report Allan Sellar and David Sutherland have ceased to be Trustes and Paul McInnes has joined. Sutherland came off on 23rd June of this year. The remaining 3 would therefore seem to have the power to decide how to use their voting clout without reference or accountability to anybody. As for the Supporters Group, Companies House lists them as an Industrial and Provident Society". No detail is provided but one is referred to the Financial Conduct Authority's "Mutuals Public Register". This may be a "public" register but you have to pay £12 to look at any of the documents lodged with them in order to find out anything more. As Davie implies, the Supporters Group is one and the same as "Caley Jags Together" which seems to be a Supporters group which avoids any contact with supporters. There is a shell of a website http://caleyjagstogether.com/ but nothing remotely meaningful is there. Perhaps an outcome of a more open approach from the Board could be the winding up of CJT and the creation of an effective fans group which could operate without the legal burdens which the shareholding imposes.

IBM has omitted the bit about the need to pre-register if you are attending. This is because there is only space for 120 people and clearly they don't want to turn folk away. I like the optimism that more than 120 will want to attend. I'm undecided at the moment. I might wait and see how many Morton beat us by on Saturday and then check availability on Monday Seriously though, It is good that the Board is doing this and given the extent of criticism there has been on this forum it would be really good if there is a great turnout. We are asking the Board to engage constructively with the fans so it really is incumbent on the fans to turn up when the Board provides the opportunity.. OK. I've convinced my self. I'm going regardless of the score on Saturday!

With paltry prize money and low gate receipts, there is a risk we could make a loss from this even if we get through to the later stages. The benefit of being in it for me is that it provides a rare opportunity of game time for one or two players who don't regularly feature. It's also an opportunity to play in competitive games without the pressure of the league and this might help in giving one or two players a wee confidence boost.

Surely the manager and Board work in tandem over contracts. Whilst the Board should not interfere over choice of player, they will set the budget which the manager has to work within. There is a grey area in between regarding the roles of different people in the actual contract negotiations. Bottom line in this is that the person leading the negotiations needs to be clear about the strategy regarding length of contract and the implications of paying a high price for a player the manager particularly wants to (re-)sign. For instance, if the Board say that there is enough budget for £4k a week in wages, there has to be clarity on whether the manager thinks the one player is so crucial to plans that all the money goes on him ,or do we, say, limit it to £2k with £1k each for 2 other players? Responsibility for unaffordable contracts is therefore a joint one. My take on our current situation is that after the cup win and gaining a European spot, the Board in general and Cameron in particular were conned into thinking that Hughes was a decent manager and that he would further consolidate our top flight status thereby boosting revenues. As a result, they gave into his demands for additional funding which was then spent either on poor players or on inappropriately generous new contracts for existing players. Meanwhile, gate revenues slumped as fans stayed away in response to the mind numbingly boring dross Hughes was delivering on the pitch. Cameron also had too much faith in Foran and gave him a decent budget too in an attempt to keep us in the top flight. Nice guy that he is, sadly Foran was not up to dealing with the mess that Hughes had left. If only Cameron had let Hughes talk to Dundee Utd when they came knocking things might be very different now. A 3 year deal for Trafford might sound, on the face of it, that the club still has not learned from past mistakes. But it very much depends on the size of the deal. If we are paying him a relatively modest, affordable wage, then if the lad develops we either get the opportunity to make something on the transfer market or we have 3 years of a player playing above the level he is being paid. Bottom line here is that for a club with resources as tight as ours and as uncertain as ours (we could be relegated again) long term contracts should only be given if they are at a wage level which the club will be able to afford if revenue takes a further significant dip. If we can get promising players in on that basis, then great.

It's interesting to have a look at the list and to note who has shares and who doesn't - or who has more or less than you might think. There are certainly a lot of shareholders and most with just the minimum holding of 250. It doesn't look as though the shareholding of Charles and I will be decisive in the coming boardroom power struggles, but you never know! Recent experience of votes in other areas of life has demonstrated that votes don't always go as expected and victory can be by the smallest of margins.

He had a positive impact in his 2nd year too. As you say, he spent much of the season struggling through injury and was unfairly criticised for errors he made in those circumstances. Despite that, he still came 4th in Scotty's Player of the Season poll which reflects the generally positive view fans had of his performances over the whole of the season. If he is fit, then I cannot for the life of me understand why he is not playing. Same goes for Raven who came 3rd in the Player of the Season poll. But in Raven's case there is an issue which I can't recall having been discussed. Apologies if it has. As we know, Raven did not feature in Hughes' plans and was effectively out on his ear when his contract expired. Foran took a different view and took him back. But if current management are looking to offload Raven to save on a major salary, one has to ask how come Raven is on such big money? If Raven was keen to stay on here and was being offered a reprieve by the club, surely Raven would not have been in a great negotiating position and would have likely accepted a significantly lower offer. If he is earning at a level which requires him, as one of our better players, to be offloaded, then it does indicate some serious irresponsibility from the club in the last couple of years when awarding contracts.

No.

To be fair, that's a pretty good statement. It says a lot of sensible things and gives some commitments which the Board need to keep. As they say themselves, now that they have talked the talk they need to walk the walk. There's quite a lot in the statement so apologies in advance for a longish post. Firstly, whilst I seem to recall someone saying Finlayson was just a fill in Chairman, the Board's statement regarding his appointment did not say so. Graham Rae was appointed to the Board after Cameron stood down so I wonder whether he was brought in with the intention of taking over after a period of familiarisation or whether the change of Chairman now is a result of Boardroom politics and/or related to the announced £500,000 investment. Regardless of that, the statement says that the whole of the investment will be "fully utilised towards addressing post and current financial shortfalls." Note that it says "towards". It is a good chunk of money but evidently not enough to fully address those shortfalls. It really does beg the question of what those shortfalls are and how they came about. What is heartening to read though, is the emphasis placed on prudent financial management going forward and not spending more than our income. It all smacks to me of an admission that there has been a period of overspending coupled with a recognition now of the need to return to the kind of sound financial management which was the keystone of our steady upwards progress in the past. Whilst the statement also talks about the goal of the Board being to return to the Premiership and compete for honours, it is interesting that it also states their desire to "restore the club to its rightful position at the heart of the Inverness community and delivering entertaining football ..." It specifically does not suggest that the club's rightful place is in the top flight. That may suggest a lack of ambition to some, but I think that is also a sensible and realistic position to take. We have no right to be in the top flight, but if we return, let it be because we have earned it and not because we have jeopardised the future of the club by spending beyond our means. What this means in practice is a significant period of rebuilding, and that might mean things getting worse on the playing side before they can get better. We are in a far worse position than when we were relegated before and we won't simply bounce back like last time for 2 reasons. Firstly we have lost so many of the players that allowed us to hold our own in the top flight, and secondly because much of our reduced income is already committed as a result of the financial mismanagement of the last 2 or 3 years. This season is all about survival both financially and on the park. For us as fans, it means facing up to the harsh realities of where we are and not having unrealistic expectations of the team. Our goal should simply be to not get relegated. If the Board can get back to balancing the books and the manager can keep us away from the drop, then next season we will have greater financial stability and a more settled team. We should then be able to start building again. The Board need to deliver on their statement and we need to hold them to account. In return, we need to give positive support to the team at this difficult time even though the standards and the results may not be what we would like and have come to expect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise where criticism is justified, but it does mean that we give our active support to the team through thick and thin.

No. He engineered his own exit before he pretended to take the huff.

With Draper and Tansey both gone this is make or break time for Liam. As you say, he has had plenty of opportunity to shine, but in the last couple of years he seems to have gone backwards. He now has a better than ever opportunity to show what he can do and playing at Championship level should also help. If he can't make a position his own this season, then I don't think he ever will.

That's where I would like to see Raven play. Surely, Robbo has to change his mind about keeping him! I have a feeling Elsdon may come good if he can get to play a few times with Warren. Given Polworth's recent lack of form, I might stick McKay at RB and have Seedorf in his place. You've not included a keeper. I'm of the view that if OFW is still on the books and if fit then he should be playing. If he wants a move then the best way to secure that is to show he is good enough for another club to want to sign him.

I wasn't at the game but posts from those who were make grim reading. We shouldn't read too much into one or two dismal performances. The previous week, our reshaped team, still lacking several key injured players, outplayed the team who are favourites to win the division. Dunfermline fans would also have been glum after being dismantled the previous week by a team who recently crashed out of Europe at the hands of Luxembourg part timers. Dunfermline bounced back with some style and hopefully we can too. These things happen. I remember Terry Butcher on more than one occasion saying he simply couldn't understand why we were so poor across the whole side after a dismal loss at a time when the side was generally playing very well. We need to beat Morton but we also need not to underestimate them. They had a great win on Saturday and will be confident that they can get at least a draw at a time when we are clearly struggling. Much has been said about the poor quality of some of our signings but I do think we need to show a bit of patience here. Seedorf, Calder and Oakley have all impressed in other games. Elsdon and Chalmers are trying to find their feet in a very makeshift back line which is missing the experienced Gary Warren - they will maybe impress more when Gary returns. As someone else has observed, a few of our recent signings come with a decent CV from bigger clubs than we usually recruit from. Calder was on Villa's books for several years and presumably was felt to have enough about him to hope that he might progress to the 1st team squad, but he obviously didn't quite make it. Elsdon has done well at Middlesbrough and has an England Youth cap. One assumes he is out on loan because they want him to have 1st team experience and will be assessing him for their 1st team squad. His background certainly suggests there is more to him than has so far been evident. Remember, Robbo does not have the level of resources to sign new players that either of the last two managers had. Personally I don't think the players he has signed are any worse than the ones signed by Hughes and Foran. The one thing I would criticise him for is saying that Raven is not in the plans. Raven has been one of our better players and always gives 100%. He is maybe getting on a bit but I would like to see him in a defensive midfield role. We don't have replacements for Tansey and Draper, whilst Polworth, sadly, seems to have gone backwards. Vigurs can't do it all. Raven would give us a bit more of the bite and composure which we so clearly need in midfield.

That would appear to be because he was carrying an injury which our neighbours appear to have identified and dealt with before you could say Feliticiano Zschusschen. Wee Billy is recovering well from his opp so let's see how he gets on OTB (if he can get into the side with the options they have!)

I would have thought the website and communications in general was of crucial importance at the moment. This is not an "either or situation". Doing some work on the communication side of things does not mean that work has to stop on work around managing the finances and addressing shortcomings at the playing end of things. All these aspects are essential parts of the business and should be complimentary. Let us suppose you are a young player down South looking for a move to get some first team experience and your agent tells you ICT are interested in signing you. What do you do? You look up the club's website, social media outlets and probably the fans forum as well to find out a bit more about the club. As things stand, unless you were desperate, you would probably tell your agent you weren't interested. In order to attract the quality of players we need, the club must project an image of an efficient, progressive club with a positive sense of purpose and with a supportive fan base. As it is, the website and social media outlets give an image of a club in crisis. For instance, in the "News" section there is a choice if "Club" news or "Team" news. The latest "Team" news concerns the visit of the Krankies to the stadium in early July. News of new additions to the team are listed under "Club" news. And even then, the extent of any information about any of the new lads is just the absolute minimum. If the club announces it's new players to be world in such an amateur way, it is not going to make the club attractive to young guys looking to progress their careers. The lack of attention given by the Board to its social media outlets may well be preventing us from recruiting the very players who could help us turn our fortunes around. And it is not as though it is difficult to do. We may need to buy in some professional expertise to improve the website and to provide some training for staff in putting new stuff on (and removing when necessary), but website update would be a one off and not very substantial cost. A small proportion of Draper's transfer fee. Once that was done it would just require an hour or two a week at most for trained staff to keep on top of things. As for the Board members themselves, I appreciate that they may not have the social media skills themselves, but from their professional backgrounds each and everyone of them should know how important it is for the club to utilise social media effectively. They should all also be capable of drafting statements or tweets and making decisions in response to any events which happen, e.g telling someone with the IT skills to remove the picture of Ross Draper from the website. P.S. Having just had a closer look at the website, I note that the club hasn't even bothered to post any announcement at all about several of our new players. Welcome to ICT guys!

Yes. This is huge opportunity for Liam to realise his potential. Having once had a plethora of players who could play in central midfield (Hughes only ever signed midfielders!) we now have a distinct shortage. and the danger here is that Polworth and Vigurs might get complacent if there is lack of competition for places. In Polworth's case though, I suspect that less competition for places and hopefully a bit more freedom to play in a preferred role will give his confidence a boost. Getting back to the form he showed early in the 2015/6 season would help to make us a pretty competitive side.

Relegation means a significant drop in revenue for a number of reasons. And with no significant financial backer the club simply has to significantly cut its costs or risk financial ruin. The harsh reality is that poor recruitment by our previous 2 managers and a number of players being on wages significantly higher than players were earning the last time we took the drop means we don't have the depth of squad or the resource to make recruitment easy. Added to that is the rather worrying lack of young talent at the right age group to move into the senior squad. No doubt some of the reasons for us being where we are will be debated at length in due course, but the first thing is to accept where it is we are. And where we are is in trouble. Getting out of trouble will not be easy and will be a long term effort. We are not going to bounce straight back to the top flight but instead we need to set the key goal of not leaving the Championship by the back door. Having said that, I am, so far, hugely heartened by what our new (returned) manager has achieved so far. I like his attitude and the way he wants the team to play. I am also encouraged by the early views of some of his signings. There looks to be real quality in Seedorf and Calder in particular and signs that others younger players could develop nicely. If we can get injured players back and a bit of stability in the side then I think we have the potential to do better than we have any right to expect. I am sure that we have the potential to play some really attractive football this season although we desperately need someone to find the back of the net with some regularity. Unfortunately, I doubt that playing attractive football is going to bring the fans back in the numbers we need in order to secure the finances required to return to and stay in the top flight. It should, though, prevent us from ever becoming a part-time club.

I've explored this in a bit more detail on another thread, but the bottom line is this. At the Inverness end, Draper instigated the move by expressing a wish to leave after County's initial offer. Had he not done so, County would have been told to politely f**k off and that would have been the end of the matter. I agree with your last sentence.

What a mountain over a molehill some folk are making over the Draper transfer! What has happened here is that County put in an offer for him which the club were not willing to accept. Draper knew about that. If he had wanted to stay with ICT he would have said so and the club would have told County that he was not for sale. That would have been the end of it. However, Draper clearly was interested in a move to County as it would mean he could continue in the Premiership and would not have to move house. Presumably it would also mean bigger wages. Given Draper's interest in the move, County's initial bid will have been turned down but they would have been told that Draper was interested in moving and ICT would be willing to sell him if County were prepared to meet the club's valuation. After at least one more rejected bid which Robertson thought would be County's final bid, County this week came up with an offer which ICT felt was a good offer , Robertson is quoted in the Courier as saying the offer was "a very substantial offer which I didn’t think they would go to". Two things are crystal clear from this. Firstly, Draper wanted the move to County. Secondly, the club were only prepared to sell him if their valuation was met. With regard to the transfer "request", this is just semantics. Draper had already informally made it be known that he wanted away and so when an offer came in which the Board was prepared to accept, they asked him to put in a "transfer request" which in reality is simply asking Draper to formally confirm that he is willing for his current contract to be terminated so that the Board can progress with finalising the transfer. It is surely good practice that before a club sell a player to another club, they have the player's formal consent. Maybe Draper thought it a bit strange, but if it is simply confirming in writing what he has previously expressed verbally and which is being acted on, what's the problem! The Courier headline is typical media sensationalist nonsense. It says "Caley Thistle boss John Robertson in the dark over claims club's board forced Ross Draper to submit transfer request". Absolutely nothing in the article remotely backs the claim up. Robertson is quoted as saying " Once Ross had tabled his transfer request it would have been futile to keep a player who had his head turned. The board and I discussed it and the transfer request was put in - that was the final part to draw a line under it and move on. We could have said no but then we’d have a very disgruntled player who wants to play in the Premiership." In other words, Draper wanted the move, Robertson discussed the latest offer with the Board and they agreed they wouldn't stand in his way. Putting in the "transfer request" was a simply a necessary formality which clearly Robertson was aware of. The suggestion of Draper being forced to request a transfer is clearly nonsense. That would imply, for instance, that an offer had come in which was so good that the club put pressure on the player to move against his will. Clearly this is not the case. Indeed it is clear that the opposite is true - the player wants to leave and the club have reluctantly let him go. The Board can, in my view, be rightly criticised over a number of issues but not regarding this. In the past when the Board generally received praise from the fans, the one recurring criticism was that we consistently failed to get decent transfer fees (or any at all) for our departing players. It is ironic that at a time when the Board is generally receiving criticism, it is being slated for what is perhaps one of the better bits of business the club has ever done in the transfer market.

There is no reason why fans should expect "loyalty" from players in the sense that we feel betrayed when they take a decision to move on. Why on earth would Draper choose to play in the Championship when he has the opportunity to play in the Premiership? Why would he turn down the offer of earning more money somewhere else. If Draper was on £2,000 a week then that may sound a lot to some folk, but being a professional footballer is not something you do till you start receiving your old age pension. Players only earn good money for a few years and after that they need to find other work till they get their pension. Sure, the top players get silly money, but players at our level need to maximise their earnings when they can in order to provide some level of security for their families. If players choose to stay at the club rather than move on then that is fantastic (as long as we want them to stay!) but it is wrong to expect that kind of loyalty. What we can expect from players is for them to play for the shirt when they are here. Ross Draper did that for several years for this club and I salute him for that. Have we sold him on the cheap? No. I don't think so. It has been well known that Draper was available if the price was right and if no club has come in for him for more than County were willing to pay then I would suggest that what they are paying is his market value. Whilst a good ball winner, Draper scores very few goals for a midfielder and is not a very creative player. Getting £100k and saving his wages is a significant boost to pretty empty coffers and I would imagine that Robbo will be looking to use some of that to bring in a combative midfielder with a more attacking mindset. I'm not sure Draper really fits in with Robbos approach to the game, and whilst I'm sorry to see him go, we might find more positives than negatives come out of this.

Did he not score early last season against Partick in the league?

I'd far rather have Draper in the team than not but I'm just making the observation that he doesn't seem to be as effective of late. You certainly can't fault his commitment when trying to win the ball back when he's lost it - particularly if he feels he was fouled in the process - but you don't see as much of that drive in other aspects of his play. He didn't have a bad game on Saturday but there were a few others who were better. I don't see anyone shouting abuse at him, but if he is going to stay, I would like to see him back to his rampaging best. I'd rather he stayed, but on current form I don't think it will be a disaster if he goes.

It pains me to say it, but our club is extraordinarily amateurish when it come to these things. Programmes were on sale on Saturday but the poor folk who sell them are given a bag of programmes and a handful of change and left to stand in some random spot regardless of the weather. You can walk straight past them with realising they are actually selling programmes. Why does the club not do what others do and have a clearly marked covered stall for programmes? This would make it clearer where to get your programmes, it would keep the folk selling them dry and protected from the biting winds, it would make it far easier for them to handle both the programmes and the money, and the stall could have scarves and hats for sale . And why not have someone just inside selling them as well. Same goes for 50/50 tickets. They could be on the stall too and certainly as you go through the turnstiles. I would happily buy a 50/50 ticket but I never see anyone selling them. Anybody who has ever helped out in a fundraising event in the local community hall or school could organise the sale of these things better. As for the tannoy system, I can be walking to the ground 400 yards away or more and hear the team line-ups as clear as a bell , but when I am in my seat in the North Stand I can' barely make out a single word. it is no doubt an effect caused by the distance from different speakers which create that distortion, but most modern PA systems get round that problem these days.