DoofersDad

HT 0-0 FT 2-0 ICT Oakley opp McDonald Crowd 2416

Rain? What rain? I'd be astonished if the game was called off. Club tweeted an hour ago urging fans to come along and watch the champions!

But Charles, a Kevlar coating would interfere with the normal and perfectly legitimate tampering with the ball. Ensuring that one side of the ball is shinier than the other to promote swing is a key aspect of the game. This is achieved by the vigorous rubbing of one side of the ball on the thigh resulting in one side of the ball maintaining its shine and trousers requiring to be washed more frequently than would otherwise be necessary. If the hand that is holding the non polished side has previously come into contact with a bit of bare soil (such as when getting a feel for the moisture content of the ground) then any roughening of that side of ball due to contact with the dry earth when shining the ball will, of course, be entirely accidental.

Hopefully it will instil a bit of confidence in the side. The lack of confidence in the final 3rd was summed up close to half time by someone in the North Stand shouting "will somebody please take a f**king shot!". If we don't pick up a few points in our next few games, the double header against Dumbarton could represent another couple of cup finals and we know that Dumbarton will make it very hard for us. With other teams in the division looking for wins to boost their play-off hopes, many of our games should be rather more open affairs than Saturday's match. It is crucial players have the confidence to go for goal when chances arise rather than simply move the ball on. I think we have left it too late for the play offs, but the key thing is to remove any fear of relegation as soon as possible. If we can do that, then we can end the season with some stress free games knowing we have a national trophy in the bag.That should set us up nicely for next year.

I agree, but for all that, I doubt that ball tampering has as much influence on the outcome of a match as diving in football. Of couse, it can be difficult to be certain whether a player has dived or not, but where there is no doubt lengthy bans should follow.

Not the greatest game ever but let’s give credit to Dumbarton. They defended very well indeed with a game plan to stop us playing. They kept things very narrow giving our midfield little space, and then they closed us down quickly making it difficult for us to find space. Having said that, we should have had the quality to find the cute passes into the space behind or to take defenders on - but we didn’t. That’s a worry. Mulraney looked particularly ineffective in a situation where getting past his man would have given him space to use his pace. Doran and particularly MacKay added that bit of sparkle as the Dumbarton defence tired. We might have got 2 or 3 at the end (Vigurs awful penalty apart). Doran drew a smart save from the keeper and MacKay took a shot when he had better options. Getting the cup win should be a great psychological boost, whilst the final 10 minutes should give some clues on how to break Dumbarton down in the games to come. As I say, not the greatest game ever, but a really important win for a number of reasons. Finally. Delighted for Gary Warren to be able to play in a final and collect the silverware.

HT 1-1 FT 2-1 ICT Polworth Opp Foxylias Crowd 4311 Ist Yellow Vigurs

Aren't you forgetting about Carl Tremarco!

Kenny Gillet was born in Bordeaux but never quite made it to Tranmere.

I was following the game with interest. It is a real shame, not only because of the unlucky circumstances, but also because this was on the back of a ridiculous decision by the ICC to reduce the numbers in the finals from 14 to 10. With the top 8 nations in the rankings being exempt from qualifying it left only 2 slots for everyone else which included the test status teams of the West Indies and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe are now favourites to join the West Indies in the finals. Whilst other sports are widening out their World competitions and allowing smaller nations the chance to compete at the highest level, Cricket is going the other way. With the World Cup next year being held in England and Wales it would have been brilliant if Scotland could have been a participant. Sadly, it is not to be The ICC should hang their heads in shame.

Should be enough to create a decent atmosphere. Looking forward to it.

I agree that few people would have suggested we would win the Cup and finish 3rd in the league that season - but only because of the complete mess Hughes made of the previous season. When he took the reigns we were 2nd with 28 points from 13 games. In the remaining 25 games we managed just 29 points. That's flirting with relegation form despite having the best squad we have ever had and playing in a seriously weakened division (No Rangers and Hibs and Hearts in self inflicted freefall). In the cup, having comfortably beaten Morton 4-0 in the last game before Hughes' arrival, we stuttered to a narrow victory against Stranraer after drawing the first game and then got thrashed 5-0 at home to Dundee Utd. We could and should have had European football a season earlier.

Blair, if you are for real, why ask on here? Why not just phone the club and ask to speak with Danny MacDonald the COO? If you have the kind of money to offer in sponsorship that would help the club in a significant way, you will be made most welcome. Can you stretch to a new playing surface? It could be called the Blair pitch project.

HT 1-0 FT 2-0 ICT Polworth Opp McDonald Crowd 5871

So, if we can just get the message across that God doesn’t actually exist, that would be the problem solved! Top marks, Charles, for getting the reformation into a thread about Highland derbies!

HT 1-1 FT 2-2 ICT Polworth Opp Clarke Crowd 5072

HT 1-0 FT 2-0 ICT Oakley Opp Hardie Crowd 1012

Apparently the bad weather delayed things at the SFA. The club hopes to have tickets available for season ticket holders on Monday and for general sale on Tuesday.

The club have announced extensions to the sponsorship deals with the 3 main sponsors. Statement on the club website is as follows. "Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC are delighted to confirm their continued partnership with their three main sponsors. Solicitors & Estate Agents McEwan Fraser Legal have put pen to paper on a contract extension for a third year to have their logo on the front of the home and away kits for season 2018/19. At the same time, Korrie Plumbing and Subway have extended their agreements with the club to have their logos on the back of the home and away kits next season. ICT club chairman Graham Rae is delighted to have the continued support of the key sponsors next season. He said: “We look forward to building on the successful partnership we have built up with McEwan Fraser Legal, Korrie Plumbing and Subway in the new season. It’s great to have such big names in the commercial world wanting to be a big part or our revival and return to the Premiership.”" On the face of it this is welcome news but there is nothing in the statement to indicate whether the level of sponsorship has changed.

So it’s apparently fine for Kilmarnock fans to make the long journey to Aberdeen through the snowfields of Central Scotland in order to play a cup match that will have some TV exposure.

Ah. Thanks. I had wrongly assumed that the earlier version of the Rules you posted yesterday was the one currently in force. I hadn't realised they had been approved in 2002 but never submitted. I guess I've now got a bit more reading to do, although I think the general gist of my lengthy post still holds largely true in the sense of the actions required. I also note that the version submitted for registration in October of last year also seems to have omitted the section allowing for postal ballots on significant issues.

Thanks Davie. Yes. That is a rather important omission as a performance audit would be a very practical way of identifying issues which need to be addressed. I was going to suggest in another post that the need to carry out a performance audit should perhaps be a topic for a resolution for a special general meeting.

Eh? My post was in response to one by Kingsmills who was suggesting a boycott of the TV companies, not a boycott of attending the matches. I didn't respond to your earlier post, but seeing as you mention it again, I don't think a boycott of attending games would work either. Personally, I am not going to stay away from supporting my team just to p*ss off a TV company which couldn't care less whether I'm there or not. They are only concerned about how many watch on TV. Personally I can't think too many people who choose to watch a match on TV are going to switch off when they see a smaller crowd.

Thanks to CaleyD for yesterday posting links to both the new Rules and the old Rules. They make for interesting reading and I would recommend anyone who wishes to participate meaningfully in this constitutional debate to have a read of them. Whatever the situation was before the current Board of CJT took over, it has recently got a whole lot worse. We have several people who have expressed concern about the unconstitutional way in which some matters have been dealt with by the Board and therefore it is important that the Board's Rules are seen to be followed by all parties going forward. But what Rules, if any, are now legally valid? The old Rules state that amendments to the rules must be submitted as an "extraordinary resolution" at a general meeting of the Society and that they need to be approved by a majority of 75% of the votes cast. The new Rules have been submitted to, and now registered by, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). In submitting them, the Secretary signed a Statutory Declaration stating that the amendment has been made in the manner provided in the rules. Given that these new Rules were not presented to a general meeting and were not approved by the members, the seriousness of the action, which Davie alludes to above, cannot be underestimated. But whilst there is clearly a serious legal liability issue for the Board, there is also a serious practical problem for the Society as a whole. The Rules are deemed to be in force when registered with the FCA. The new Rules have been registered but were not approved by the membership as the old Rules require. And the old Rules are no longer those registered with the FCA. So which, are the legally valid rules ? Or are neither of them now legally valid? I would suggest the Board seeks urgent legal advice on this and takes the appropriate steps to rectify the situation. In the meantime, I would assume the old Rules should apply both because the new Rules have not been approved by the membership and because they were submitted to the registration body with an untrue statement. On the plus side, there do not appear to be too many differences between the old and the new Rules and therefore using the old Rules until the new Rules have been appropriately registered should not lead to major problems. There is clearly a need for a Special General Meeting (SGM) for a number of reasons. (Note the term in the rules is "special" and not "extraordinary"). But it is important to note that under the Rules (old and new!") "no business other than that stated in the notice of the meeting shall be conducted at the meeting." The meeting will not allow members to raise issues from the floor. So whilst there is an urgency for a meeting for other reasons, it is also important that the agenda of the meeting is carefully thought through and that as a priority, it deals with the Rules issue. I would respectfully suggest that in the notice of the meeting the Board provides the members with copies of the old and new rules together with a document which details the changes and the reasons for them. Provided that nobody identifies any serious problems with the amendments then there should be no reason why the new rules cannot be approved by the required 75% of votes cast. Sorry for the length of this but it seems to me that having an assurance that our Rules are constitutionally and legally valid is a basic precursor of moving forward. All other actions require to be carried out within the Rules and we cannot have their legitimacy undermined because the Rules used were not valid.

I suppose if the police are advising that folk from the Brechin area should not travel, then there is little option but to call it off. Given the chaos there has been in some parts of the country it is understandable if on-going travel advise is on the "precautionary" side. How folk on the continent must laugh at us! A basic principle is a match should go on if:- 1. The pitch is playable 2. The access road and pavements around the ground are clear of ice and snow. 3. The away side assess that it is safe for the team to travel. Fans live all over the place and it will be safe for some to travel and not for others. It must be up to individuals to listen to advice and decide for themselves as to whether it is safe to travel or not. We are all accountable for our own decisions. I wonder how much money the club has spent on using the under soil heating to make the pitch playable only for the match to be postponed.