Glover

The club will be paying 1.5m + in wages each year ( I did cigarette paper calculations, can show my work). Only a third of that (now) would be on players. Running costs on top of that and I would say the club spends upwards of 2m. Just my own idea - happy to have that corrected.

Sunderland I'm sure have a big offering. Rightly, the club has trimmed and cut and whatever else. But is there room for more ? Absolutely. Stalls: Harry Gow, Black Isle Bar, Tomatin, Loch Fyne Oysters, Loch Duart Salmon, Cairngorm Brewery, Spey Valley Brewery, Salar Smokehouse Flaky Smoked Salmon - how many are taking advantage of 2000-3000 people? We simply can't have central belt factories churning out pies if the by-line is community focused and also sustainable. Not ok.

The amount of attention focused on food is not surprising. I just watched Ricky Gervais talk about food & drink in glowing terms and perhaps that's the bottom line. People want decent grub, decent plonk and will be more amenable to win, lose or draw. It would even make money and wouldn't impinge on hospitality if it was kept rudimentary. Also, I'd like to highlight Graham Rae's statement on ICTFC as worth reading - it's pretty good - and shows a wider purview than perhaps has been the tone of late. It seems well thought out and quite comprehensive in terms of what the forum hd been raising as issues. I have been critical of the ICT board and Mr Rae of late, and been called out for it, c'est la vie, but only in hope of believing in better, and I applaud his statement wholeheartedly. Let us have more of it, on both sides, and work towards his sentiments entirely.

Economies of scale and all that, but certainly insofar as competition - yes. It is very expensive to run a full time club and realistically needs 5000 fans. While I agree, I also see how tricky more outlay must be in this particular situation. It needs a lot of imagination and creative, outside the box thinking to move beyond. Some of which is coming from the posts above and that is encouraging to see positive input and constructive ideas.

I have no idea where Project Brave came from either! Unusual title. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying less is more. Fewer youth players (just the most promising) but playing at a higher level/against more senior and/or challenging opposition. I think the bottom line is the bottom line. If we were in the top division it would likely be different.

Arguably the vision is from having a full complement of youth teams. With finances highlighted as a perennial issue perhaps the strategy is to have a first team of homegrown players, from whatever is produced. The buzzword at the club is 'sustainable' and I imagine that means self-sufficient. No Premiership team could do that but it is somewhat possible in the Championship if a few players are brought in to keep the wold from the door in the shape of finishing in the bottom two. A reserve squad hints at a larger first team of players near/in their peak, whereas we have about 13 such outfield players.

We are involved in something called Project Brave are we not? That means a full obligation of youth teams. A reserve team (when our first team average age is 23 or so - can’t recall) would be quite a challenge on top. With Daniel being added to the first team I suppose the first team will be giving more game time to promising youth players. We should be looking at/wanting to/feeling capable of winning the league but the reserve opt-out perhaps hints that the strategic planning has not made that the benchmark for success or primary outcome. If as Caleyboy says it is just Alloa and ourselves that’s interesting but how heavily invested in youth teams are all those other teams too?

It’s quite disconcerting that many commentators on this threat have done a cost-benefit analysis and found it not worthwhile. If I think of the competing expenses on leisure entertainment, I have a large Smart TV, pay for a TV licence, then two digital TV packages, Sky Sports (ad hoc), 4G Internet, home WiFi, two magazine subscriptions. I also have a FT and a PT commitment. If I lived in Inverness that would be more of a quandary on attending. All clubs are wrestling with this. I think there has to be added value to even just stay still. A shuttle bus there, a free entry bar area, perhaps showing a midday EPL game, a decent bar lunch, and some post-match beers and a later shuttle back would do it, as well as some more meaning to it all (besides the locale and football). (Now I think of it, Reading F.C. had this). I know this is a far cry from the days of flat caps and escapism from the mills, pits, or yards but so are our lives.

And it is very, very sage to do this as attachments are formed in the younger years. I applaud the coaching, biggest home game and holiday/festival initiatives that have been in place for some time now. Regarding the adult supporter, if we look back at last season the sponsor evening, tickets for it couldn’t be given away (literally) which strikes me as quite odd. It is my opinion that there needs to be a better engagement with all sections of the support. A family club it is but the initiatives and efforts should be across the support base. Younger fans generally don’t worry themselves about who the board is or what the behind the scenes look like - rightly so - but the club is not a 90minute operation and a lot of work goes into that 90 minutes, on and off the park. I’m not suggesting fans start coaching! I am suggesting you, me or whoever have more to offer the club in addition to attendance, sponsoring Liam, buying a shirt, etc. and at least the offer/facility should be there. Just because it isn’t in place doesn’t mean that that is normative. Attachments formed early on still need topping up.

Definitely. I don’t want to come across as negative for negative’s sake. The insights (answers), at least a decent chunk of them, will also come from supporters, in particular season ticket holders and youthful fans. It thus makes sense to have such representatives rotate on the board, for a section of a particular meeting and for a set number of meetings. I respect the experience on the board, but no too much that it should be unilateral. I appreciate the office of director at the club, I think the role is incredibly important, but I don’t see football clubs (ones in lower leagues that don’t buy/sell) being that structured, sensitive or executive that we cannot have a flatter model approach.

I am not wanting to elbow in on the OP but yes I have ideas on it. I don’t think the club can afford the luxury of those fans who were pre-merger or Caley Thistle differentiating themselves as diehard, ‘true’ fans - that’s not inclusive, is very subjective, not to mention somewhat of an anachronism. Modern times and a global world means accepting ICT might be supported alongside an EPL team or La Liga team - we shouldn’t be imposing how we became a fan or that environment on today’s fan as the world has a habit of moving on. I am keen for fan voice and fan engagement for a while host of reasons - governance, sustainability, continuity, balance, reciprocity, mutual benefits, harmony, etc. Rather than my own ideas, the ideas and inspiration are at other clubs such as community-wide-Open Days (not purchase entry days) or if anyone thinks this is superfluous or indulgent take a look at DUFC as to what their supporters can do. Fans can and do contribute hugely to many clubs (and their communities) beyond a ticket and a pie and I am yet to hear an argument why fan voice, engagement or representation is a bad thing. By all means ‘through thick and thin’ is positive, but why does that have to be so elitist and passive?

A very interesting thread and post - and one that strikes a few chords, with me at least. On the one hand I can see some promising moves as you have highlighted and I do think that the club itself is likely being run in a way that is more local, more self-sustaining, and one that reflects its location. It is definitely worth pointing out the community efforts inside the club, particularly at youth level but also in public health and social welfare. There also seems to be a desire to be more efficient and penny-wise. That being said, I think that there is too much of a disconnect between the main body of fans. I get the excitement over the #biggesthomegame but it seems that’s all there is. For some, we have a squad, we watch 11 of them play, once a week, and it’s similar to buying a Sunday newspaper or going to the cinema. However, if the club are truly serious about being sustainable it cannot be passive with the paying adult fan. There is next to nothing for that demographic and I find it concerning that we have not heard much from the Chairman or CEO for a long time. ICT is not that big that there is such a remove, and not that small that it is voluntary. I still get the impression that the club executives see the fan as a passive source of income and only really consider ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’ for reproach or before season ticket sales. It isn’t so at different clubs who have much more of an inclusive approach and I feel that the separation between fan and club although not necessarily noticed or problematic for a few it is and will be a factor in declining attendance and support and the laissez-fare attitude will only reduce support city-wide and region-wide, particularly amongst the full-fee or similar level supporter. This is said not in isolation, I absolutely applaud the make up of the coaching team and the moves there and the focus on youth - it is simply the frustration over the ivory tower-communications and the inconsistency of information beyond the basics of fixtures and ticket prices which concerns me. It is enough maybe for some to be as functional as that, but I don’t see how being so limited and traditionalist will ever drive things forward.

Mbappe was indeed the star of the tournament. Let’s see where England are at Qatar with all of Russia 18 players well within age to play there also and with four years for players to push on/fall out.

Wouldn’t Cove feel cheated? Hearts did not have that player at their disposal but used him for 25 mins in a tight game. Could Cove not realistically have drawn/got a bonus point had Hearts had to field an inferior player on the pitch. Surely Cove have to be given the replay or three points for there to be equity; that was their right and opportunity to get 1,2 or 3 points but was spoiled, sullied or distorted. If it’s akin to being cheated out of a contractual obligation , a retrial/replay is needed with Hearts bearing full costs and more.

At the level ICT are at now there is room for very few semi-established, sold performing ‘outsiders’ from England. I think the club means to have a squad of 12-14 local players and 3-5 incoming players who serve a specific purpose. I don’t see that being much more than a mid-table Championship ambition and that’s not a dig, just being realistic. At this level, first team players can only expect to be earning the same as a professional in a civil service role and at best means the odd yo-yo into the top division. Hoping for a Livingston - expecting a Dunfermline. England continues to be a more lucrative draw at all levels. The board are not wrong in their sustainability and low-cost approach, I just wish it was more realistic in terms of promotion and ambition when considering the landscape.

In a friendly, on your debut, against an amateur team, with 7 youth players on the pitch alongside you - mad.

It’s not very critical, just as SO says, we are not a club with many facilities or resources and Hearts are. Mulraney highlighting that isn’t a swipe, just an observation. It was probably the same for some players getting more at the World Cup, and can similarly be the opposite (Roy Keane/Mick McCarthy). What facilities / resources does the club have?

No Netherlands or Italy, a below par Brazil, Argentina and Germany. I wonder how those teams will or won’t shape the next World Cup. Sadly it’s in Qatar and I won’t be watching. Anyway, very few 0-0, VAR, lots of upsets, some new players emerging and all the main news from on the pitch. It was a successful tournament and credit where credit is due.

Are the BBC allowed to get over excited? Or should they inform and/or educate and/or entertain? In this instance the entertain is from the football, we only need inform and educate - sadly lines were blurred. BBC WC coverage was arrogant and drifted into the One Show or All Together Now territory and what’s more did not reflect public broadcasting service values. That’s the standard, like it or not, and why we have to put up with UK laws and fines to protect it . The role reversal where ITV were the more sober of the two surprised me - I never ever wanted to watch ITV over BBC before for the WC. I’m with Brian Clough on this. The BBC should have let the football do the talking, and not treat it is an ex-pro lads away hol, like we were watching a WC Big Brother and the tone should have been the same had they been reporting it for Sco, N.Ire, Wal or Eng, as its a PBS. To reiterate I think the fans and team were let down by the BBC. It’s another nail in their coffin now TV comes from Apps inside Smart TVs and Netflix and Amaxon and Now TV etc. need paying. Easier to delete the app...

I disagree. Yes there were a few incidents that were poor show but nobody was stabbed and nobody died. OF games until the millennium could be counted on for that. I won’t tar tens of millions of fans partying on the basis of the action of, at most, a hundred who vandalised stuff. We’d have the same and so would any country, though anlot would be worse. I never met any thugs at the 2006 World Cup and was bought many a beer.

The ‘It’s coming home’ thing will probably be jumped on but I don’t blame the fans for that - they can and should dream. Roy Keane on ITV had something to say about media pundits looking/speaking too far ahead and was quite persuasive. I doubt though the England players or staff believed any of that. Sadly, the BBC in England/UK is a continual embarrassment - not just in football but in many respects. In this instance, the BBC could have acknowledged or set the tone and been balanced/impartial, like ITV but their very first go-to was a parody of what life would be like in England after them winning the WC - that was how they opened their coverage. ITV had Bilic and Keane and O’Neill and it’s a sad day when ITV are the pragmatics. It would have been tongue in cheek for Scotland, Ireland etc. but the BBC were just sophomoric and really didn’t strike the right tone. Croatia/Modric said the media’s hang up on them being tired and discussing plotting the draw and it being a clear path motivated them, but again that was media driven, not squad or fan - the latter from what I read wanted a test. Friends from England were content with getting to a semi final and had huge concerns over the team and their frailties. The BBC have spun what is, and what should be, a very promising first foray, into a failure from the outset, and most English fans, and I’m sure the squad in time, won’t see it that way. It’s another stumble by a BBC that needs some checks on its representativeness, impartiality, and Reithian values. It’s a sad day when ITV come out on top.

One of the forwards will need to be on a 20-goal run if promotion is to be on the cards, and that is not in the history of any player not even by half, at this level. Not to say it isn’t in any of them, I think it could be, but that’s what the season hinges on, that and assists from Polworth.

With a rejigged coaching team (especially the loss of an experienced asst.) and a new captain and vice-captain I would have liked to have seen one more experienced face in, as we can’t afford to be without Tremarco/Doran. I’m not going to go there, but I’d have thought there’d be money freed up from those who Kellacher, Tremarco, Doran replaced.

Aberdeen have been caught out badly by being paired with Burnley. Their pre-season in preparation for that game is shambolic. No wonder they tried to add a test closer to their first team level. How Cove did against Falkirk is all power to their elbow but Cove & WBA in the two weeks prior to a Europa League fixture is hugely unbalanced and a poor show from the SPFL representatives in the Europa league.

Aberdeen have messed up their pre-season badly and have a 12 day gap between St Johnstone (yesterday) and WBA (20th) with only Cove (15th) in between before the Burnley game (26th). They have also lost 10 players and brought in only 3 with a few already injured. They needed better opposition than Cove but left it too late to fit/find any. Their U20s are away too. WC semi-final and no parking wasn’t ideal but moot now. Wonder why RC, St Johnstone and Aberdeen pre-season friendlies aren’t more of an occurrence/planned.