Glover

No probs. There's been loads of ideas/suggestions over many years - I just can't see how this was developed with any overarching logic model.

17,500 fans. It looked pretty empty. Getting out of the group would be a good result and I think then there’d be a spike in attendance.

The BBC reported this as 'Scotland four wins from Euros': which translated as beating Albania and Israel at home, drawing both away games, and then beating two teams (from gp. 2-4) in the playoff semi-final and final. Either way, one of the teams in League C is in the Euros. Tonight's game will be interesting, Albania beat Israel 1-0.

Fair point. The long and short of my response was to acknowledge a range of board members' views and/or online presence. I am on the Trust board, you're right, and my posts here do give a strong indication of what I would be for, or against, true. I think in the Gary Warren thread it was stated that it would be made explicit if it was as coming from the Trust, or Trust as a whole, and was otherwise in a personal capacity. I will check on it to make sure. And thanks!

50% of the Trust board may not have so I, and the other CTO members who are on the Trust's board and have posted, can't really claim the Trust has taken notice either, until it is on agenda, or raised and also then minuted. I haven't yet posted in a capacity of a Trust board member. I have raised one thread from CTO before. As CaleyD has said above, there are updates on work being done to follow. Making sure Trust members direct the Trust, and the Trust board, is why I put my name forward, I'm excited about the upcoming AGM, there's been no twiddling of thumbs but lots to do before December still. Getting to the stage where the club consults is another thing. But if I post here it's not coming from the Trust.

Firstly, it has to be negotiated or co-constructed, between the two parties, which precludes any transmissive approach. This would relate to structured dialogue. Secondly, it has to be mutually beneficial - the supporters have to see benefit from it but so do the club. With regards to Testimonials and ICT25, these are current examples and opportunities but there would be numerous examples here. Lastly, it has to be equitable, the club has all the resources, paid staff, expertise, job descriptions - so has an inbuilt advantage, and power over the other, so this has to be recognised. The club could assist with facilitating supporter engagement, and some examples have been suggested earlier. This is before things like re-building/winning back trust and re-engaaging supporters happens (the ICT board's words, not mine). I think the Supporters Trust will have taken notice of this thread, yes, but an email or DM there is a good way to check. But if it is the case of the Supporters Trust having to do all the initiation and leg work then it won't really work. There has to be ownership on both sides of any meaningful dialogue.

Or even the scorpion and the frog. The scorpion is drowning in a river and asks a frog to take it on its back to the river bank. The frog agrees but tells the scorpion not to sting it, otherwise they will both drown... Chairman - 24 August 2017: "Winning back your trust, improving your match experiences and building a side that can get us back into the Premiership are my key priorities as I begin my new role as Chairman of this proud club... a new era of engagement" CEO - 25 May 2018 "Our 25th anniversary gives us a great goal to work towards re-engaging with our supporters and building a great future". Chairman - 25th August 2018: "Please note that the ICTFC values across our club are based on being: P.R.I.D.E" [see Alloa programme, p7] You pays your money and you takes your choice.

1) Open Night for season ticket holders (up to 120) was held on Mon 21 August 2017. Since then, we have had three new directors join and a new CEO, yet I am not aware of any opportunities to meet having been planned since. Q&A (Open Night) is fine as a starting point for the season but I don't see that as being the box ticked. On top of that, something more formal i.e. structured dialogue. 2) 'I just struggle to see what else needs communicating' - but that is top-down (and so is Q&A). These things are fine as part of a bigger framework. As I've said previously, of the eight minority supporter owned clubs, we are the only one without some kind of formal supporter dialogue. Supporters Direct Scotland and the government's 2014 Working Group on Supporter Involvement in Football Clubs (WGSIFC) promote this dialogue (not just informing, dialogue). I'm glad you mention CPFC. The English Football League (EFL), in England's equivalent of WGSIFC, recommended that its member clubs’ directors and/or senior executive management represent the club at least two meetings per year with supporters, which must include the supporters trust, as well as considering any individual who requested to attend. So, were CPFC to be relegated, the silver lining would be thus! '...those who put the money in and take the risks get the say' - I will not be taking a bite of that cherry, 'For fools rush in where angels fear to tread' - that is another area for a braver soul. You are right that endless to-ing and fro-ing on everyday things is problematic and another thread, by SP, mentioned Boardroom Banter and Scotty's response concurs with your example very neatly. I can extend the challenges to fan representation: the WGSIFC don't really back a fan representative on the board as it can be very disruptive. Cathy Jamieson was on the shortlist submitted by The Killie Trust (Trust in Killie £100,000 fan rep fund) to the club and was the one eventually selected by Kilmarnock FC. You would need someone effective for both fan and club and it's been documented how tough it is for both the fan rep and the board. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, and in 2010 (in England & Scotland) Trusts were represented on 60 club boards and 15 clubs were owned by supporters. To come back to it, the democratic deficit is correct because a) ICT fans are minority shareholders and b) our fans have no say, except to vote with their feet, and it's bad for the club and it's bad for Scottish football - TV rights companies hate half-empty stadia and won't pay a lot for it. I support structured dialogue and so does the government, UEFA, SFA and SPFL. 3) Fair enough but you are the exception. A significant number of fans in that survey cited it as a reason, third, after ticket prices and kick-off times.

It is the duty of senior management to consult supporters. If, on top of that, supporters also write in and they get replies, all good and well. However, senior management being solely reactive, not proactive, does not meet with our charter’s codes.

Yes, SP, but I would challenge the same old, same old climate. I read an article at the weekend that had English managers lamenting that less than a decade ago British managers/clubs/fans used to mock or laugh at European chairmen for this trigger-happy stuff. We are seeing a continental shift and I wonder whether St Mirren's case is a) a personal falling out or b) a result-based decision. Hopefully a) but for Stubbs I suppose it is a moot point. Brian Rice as manager will be an interesting interlude.

The Livingston result on the 25th Aug was bad, but the three other results were no surprise. There must be more to this?

While I appreciate the doubling down on supporter agency, I am still not really seeing why: What is it the Chairman and Board need to speak, tweet or communicate about currently? They need to adhere to the club's Codes of Practice, specifically the Customer Charter, which states: "We are committed to ensuring that our supporters are kept informed by:  Consulting our shareholders and supporters through on-going direct communication and opportunities to meet..." 'currently' does not come into it - it's a constitution or function. It does not need any event, which takes me to your next point... IMHO they only need to communicate when they have something they need to communicate about, ticket issues, player movements (not bowel), disciplinary issues and fan behaviour, club promotional offers and the like. And I guess issues around club management, which currently seems to be appointments. It's probably asking too much to be informed about financial matters on a regular basis, in fact is there any benefit to that Nobody has suggested the fans should see the books in any post that I'm aware of. As for your conception of communication, I think you are advocating for a top-down, prescriptive, managerial and punitive approach. If that is really the concept to which you and others subscribe to then I am flabbergasted. Promoting a reality where fans are less informed, less included, less involved and less consulted [sic] is quite some position and I would like you to explain how that will be more beneficial to the club than the alternative. I have, in previous posts, explained that the will of the Scottish government, UEFA, the SFA, the SPFL, and the reality at many clubs opposes your model, and so I am not seeing how your democratic deficit is beneficial. I know it exists in societal institutions aplenty, but few have ever argued for it. Personally in response to Glovers post, relationship with a club is important (by which I understand that to be the emotional links, and sense of family/unity) but communications from the Board have no impact at all on me deciding whether to travel 500 miles to watch the team (nor 5 miles to watch my other team). Mind you a sense of unity usually comes from the team doing well in which case most people agree that the Board and manager must be doing something right! You v 12,000+ supporters in a survey funded by SFA and SPFL. Again, you are attempting to neuter fan agency and I cannot fathom this line whatsoever. It is clear what my agenda is, I would like to know what benefits your approach will bring? So perhaps we need to clarify what it is we are really after, is it supporter representation on the board (which isn't necessarily about communication, more transparency), or more Club participation into local events, or more (some!) Q&A sessions, or more social media interaction, or closer match-day contact with board members? Are members of the board seen as real fans or opportunists? What should the board do that isn't seen as cynical manipulation? These are excellent points and I agree it needs to be negotiated There needs to be a supporter dialogue and a collaboration that leads to a fan-club model that increases attendances and that needs to be done sooner rather than later. At the Supporters Trust AGM in December these are good points to raise. A last word, support for the board and the questioning of fan motives is a valid line and not without merit; I'm sure the board do feel much maligned and the fans (enough of them) feel taken for granted. How that can be resolved and how we can (sadly) get to a point where we mimic how our neighbours got relegated and then saw a 10% increase (at least) in season ticket sales is what must be worked towards. As minority shareholders, and by citing the charter, it is surely true that supporters, as stakeholders, are not treated as you, IYHO, would have it; to paint the ICT fan as a mere day visitor/customer enjoying a moan is not just wrong but damaging to the club's future, regardless of incumbents past, present and future. [all my personal views]

Why would you, and others, want to limit or belittle fan involvement or interest in their clubs? You do realise you are contradicting legislation, vis-à-vis the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015? Of the eight clubs in Scotland who are minority owned by supporters (10-49%), only one has had neither supporter representation nor structured dialogue. Trust in Killie raised £100,000 to get a representative on the board, which they now have. Foundation of Hearts are speaking at a Supporters Direct meeting at Fir Park next week, presumably to update on their 75.1% ownership progress. But I guess that's just more nonsense.

That is a marker for the season. Last season with a management change, like Falkirk and Dundee Utd, we were playing catch up. But that will have got other clubs' attention.

A few years ago he was on the cusp of the WBA first team. I can't say, apart from injuries, what the application level was, but the harsh reality for all our players now is that if they don't cut it at this level currently, it is part-time football and a career outside of the game. In fact, they really need to be getting themselves into the Premiership for their own sake. Does that translate to complacency - it would not be the rational choice certainly.

This is just my own response to the above opinion that a link between communication and attendance is 'nonsense'. The Supporters Trust may also respond to this in time, I don't know. Anyway, in conjunction with the SFA &SPFL, Supporters Direct Scotland launched a supporters’ survey in 2017. Over 12,000 responses (including 122 from Inverness Caledonian Thistle) revealed the following: Relationship with the club was the third most important factor in deciding whether to attend games or not (after ticket prices and then kick-off times) [Supporters Direct Scotland (2017) Your Voice is Heard: Scottish Football Supporters Survey] http://www.scottishsupporters.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-Scottish-Football-Supporters-Survey.pdf p5

0-2 Dunfermline were strong last season - this is a very, very good scoreline.

It wasn't until after Christmas Livingston really got going, already in the top four they brought in new players in January obviously knowing they had a good chance of getting a playoff spot and so went for it. Similarly, last season was a write off for us until mid-March and so just brought in one player in January transfer window. If we are fourth (or above) by Christmas, there has to be some movement on players in, and out, if the club are serious about Premiership football being in Inverness again.

Is it ok for the CEO of this football club to have never directly engaged with fans since Nov 2017, or three months - 'officially' May 2018. Is it ok for the Chairman to have not directly engaged for a year with fans (since August 15th 2017?) as per the club's own charter. There is no engagement with supporters of any kind (hospitality and #BiggestShirtSales is not engagement). The fact is the club's own charter, available on the club website states, reveals it isn't doing enough: Communication We are committed to ensuring that our supporters are kept informed by:  Consulting our shareholders and supporters through on-going direct communication and opportunities to meet. This is not something unique to CaleyD, ICT, or even Scotland. I read in the news of Hull supporters last week demanding the same things. The idea that ICT's board and senior management are somehow unaccountable to fans should definitely be met with cynicism, but at least such posts show no sign of defeatism. Sadly, I feel that 'the club' and you are of one mind but that does not make it ok, right, or representative of what happens at other clubs. As always, I respect your input and differing opinion and this is just my own personal opinion in reply to yours. I have no axe to grind, no allegiances to one nor the other, except to say I do not share how senior management see fans as some kind of Uriah Heep figure and feel it is harmful and indicates poor governance at play.

Martin. He played for both Fort William on loan and ICT U17 last season but was injured for a bit. Todd Morrison deputised a fair bit too, as did some others.

Sean Welsh Pen 2-1 and red card Alloa

Apologies.

I have put levels next to the fixtures kindly provided by caleydawson We get to play an ELITE team once: Aberdeen, Celtic, Hamilton, Heart of Midlothian, Hibernian, Kilmarnock, Motherwell, Rangers. We play PROGRESSIVE (same level) teams: Ayr United, Dundee United, Partick Thistle, Ross County, St Mirren, St Johnstone, Greenock Morton And then also these teams at a PERFORMANCE lower level (apparently) Dundee, Fife Elite Football Academy, Queen’s Park. I don't think there is a league table. SFA haven't updated their website from U17 of last season. Celtic, Hearts, Hibs haven't either. The notion I recall is that Elite play each other three times. But as far as I can see, the U18s (which is new from this month - didn't exist before) in which our successful U17s are now in is shrouded in mystery. Is it two groups (explaining the 50/50 split of elite teams we play)? No idea. Henry McCleish was pretty scathing on it all, saying it is just benefitting the top-tier clubs. Playing Dundee and Fife Elite twice is not consistent with the terms originally outlined. It is proving to be a very opaque, complicated and expensive system

I'm guessing the Portuguese flag may hold the key.. Can't fault him for keenness - I'm sure due diligence has been done.

'no employment as a professional sportsperson (including as a sports coach)' Easily fixed - just promote him from the U18s to the first team.