Glover

Anything post-1979 I have trouble with. But this is not bad tbf- ‘I can make your hands clap’ (do-doo-doo-doo-doo) and repeat. BBC just had a rather tepid article on football songs that have sentence or two altered and used by clubs. ‘A player is on fire’ etc. We could have ‘Austin makes our hands clap’. Anyway better than the official song for the WC...

Aberdeen have an away friendly at Cove on the day of the World Cup Final [15th] and it will finish 15 mins before the Final begins - Aberdeen are ruining the World Cup for everyone - imagine the mad dash home/top pub after that game for fans! Aberdeen messed up their pre-season fixtures with too big a gap between their first team friendlies with St J [8th] and West Brom [20th] (with above game downgraded to XI?). Though at our stadium, ICT must have been offered the 11th (which was the only realistic, workable date for both) so went for it, and kick off 30 mins into a SF prob an AFC-stipulation to allow travelling Dons fans to get there on time after work - ICT option of a 5.30pm KO? AFC wouldn't have wanted to annoy fans with an unmanageable fixture - WC or no. I'm thinking, did Aberdeen mess up their friendlies, and thus be paying ICT some sort of incentive fee (even for an Away game) for this awkward fixture - if not... ?

I have submitted my name also and will fly over on the Tuesday for it.

It’s PC gone mad.

Until 2:20 or so the team would have to remain in the tunnel (or wherever) but I like it! It’s got enough pep, after 2:20, and would be unique to the club and is relevant (and we would pick up more SNP-oriented fans). That has my vote thus far. Though I would still have Sean and Queen myself - but AC/DC is good too. If we keep testing the waters why not start a poll? That would be one way to start the 25th anniversary with a quasi-official anthem or anthems.

The club, now we have Commercial Director, Commercial manager and a marketing CEO need to be experimenting and trying new things, staying still isn’t an option. This would be a very intriguing trial to get fans engaged. Rightly, things like the Golden ticket and community events with school age children are to be applauded but there’s still a lot to be done in terms of adult season ticket and floating fan outreach. Fans are worth 300k-800k a year and such ‘clients’ are the bread and butter of Dalgarno, Crook and Oliver. We are also heading into 25th anniversary territory so we should be setting the bar high.

I think this is a case in point (however incidental it may appear for others) for how more fan engagement or fan voice in the club could be realised while still recognising the many behind-the-scenes things that the club has to get right (things that are only visible if things go awry such as disciplinary records, health & safety etc.). Things like music shouldn't be top-down or arbitrary but as a result of a process decided buy the many and perhaps adjusted season by season in lieu of a fixed preference. Laurence's original suggestion would perhaps give us the edge in the first two mins of games as it would throw the opposition. I'm not sure what tune would work. Local would be good or if not one that had some relevance to the locale or team.... Sean Connery narrating Highlander: "From the dawn of time we came, moving silently down through the centuries, living many secret lives, struggling to reach the time of the gathering, when the few who remain will battle to the last. No-one has ever known we were among you...until now" - - - and then Queen's 'Princes of the Universe' (or another Queen song). ?

Celtic have Rod Stewart, Hibs have Reid twins, Watford Elton John, who is Inverness's 'artist in residence'?

As the longest-serving and most senior player, I imagine he is one of the top earning players at the club. These 3 players thing is bunkum - it’s reported as being to slash the wage bill and nothing else. The issue is not about what Gary earns - as I’ve said before, if it had been prohibitive the board would have made this move a year ago. We can infer that at least. The board in 2017 also forecast where they would be (I hope) and still didn’t act. Its not the wage. The club have obviously arranged for a reporter to come to the club (or phone) during the holidays with one story, that Gary had been told to leave. I guess that John Robertson was asked to give the interview. I also guess the decision to tell the press came after Gary had refused to take a pay cut and or early termination for a sum much less than his contract value. If that sits easy with some then that’s their prerogative. Personally, I think it was an overstepping by the board on the playing squad to allocate his wage else where. If hiring in backroom non-football staff and cutting at the football squad level is what is wanted and is the modus operandi then we shall have a very well operated stadium, submitting its accounts seamlessly, and very little stress for the directors, and hosting part-time football in League one. How many season tickets would we sell then? Is that what the board means when they talk about ‘sustainable’?

So after long-service your employer, a year before retirement, says ‘actually -change of plan - better for us if you leave’. And you think that’s ‘staying the same’ and not at all negative... You also seem to be implying that people who have issue with this decision are just malcontents. Plenty of people who have an issue with this are ‘happy clappers’ towards the players. They are less inclined to give board decisions a free pass. I’d say that is good practice, indeed it’s what makes democracy to have robust opposition (or should do). Happy clapper or being positive does not equate to agreeing with the board’s decisions, certainly not when a fan has a rational objection to that. I find myself to be a ‘player happy clapper’, and perhaps you are a ‘board happy clapper’. Let’s be happy together.

What team - which division? I don’t want to be pedantic but I don’t see where this demand for a ‘slow, old, unfit defender ’ is coming from?

Big payday?

Agree with that Alan, so it was probably not worth the board’s while to try on the off chance. Thus I question the nous of the board.

Options that could have been considered: 1) Give Gary another contract 2) Wait until 2019 3) Give Gary his contract value and ask him to clear his locker 4) Offer Gary a percentage of his contract to leave now 5) Go to the Press & Journal and bemoan finances, highlight "premiership wages' and 'appearance fee', and see if the guilt trip will work. I imagine 4 was offered to Gary. Gary said no (or asked for an improved percentage). That was rejected. A board member phoned the P&J and set up an interview. A staff member gave an interview. And here we all are. I will try and make it to the last game of the season at ICT for hospitality and maybe shake his hand and thank him for his 7 years, 220-appearances and his part in getting us to the Scottish Cup Final past Celtic and Premier years. Hopefully see certain people there.

In jest, Caman. I do see the argument as you laid out.

Me. Made 25 appearances last season and is our longest-serving player -might be 33 but defenders often are older to marshall the team from the back in lieu of the keeper, an important year for the club with all the younger players that’ve come through, as a qualified teacher and coach the team will be stronger with him in the dressing room during their transition.

Fore!

If I had to summarise this thread I would say there are relatively equal viewpoints on either side. Neither being wholly right or wholly wrong. It also seems to becoming slightly polarised by views on old board, new board. Again, neither board were or are particularly all bad or particularly all good. I think all would agree however that settling for the Championship isn’t ambitious enough. Much of the discussions are how we swap places with Livingston next season. That end may be achieved by different means and it is those means that are being debated. It is the outcome, promotion, not the method, that is the unifying element. Some say retaining experience and stability, some say rolling the dice. Gary may have become a proxy for a less visible undercurrent that promises on better communication and fan engagement (or at least consideration) have only materialised when it comes to season tickets and shirt sales. Again, some may not see that as a major issue and some may feel fan voice, fan role and fan contribution should be more pronounced. Either way, I think it has been one of the better discussed threads which has had differing views. I maintain my position but I can see the other views’ merit in terms of being outcome driven and end focused as opposed to worrying about the methods or means too much. All illuminating, all informative, and hopefully not polarising.

Ah - I stand corrected. Then probably/perhaps any other member would be financial. People/Fan engagement is what is needed, definitely. We are sailing into the Carlisle United or Crawley Town model of having a fan rep on the board. The former had a board approved shortlist + vote on social media, the latter £8000 gift from the supporters' trust and a member only vote. Their remit was engagement.

Agreed, that would be teams of Dalgarno & Oliver (commercial), Fyfe & Crook (PR & Marketing), Robbo & Danny (Football) with Rae (management/business development) Mackenzie (legal) and McPhee (financial). What other skillset or oversight is required? Matchday experience? We seem to be well represented in terms of adverts and sales.

There is no doubt that good governance is to safeguard the future, be sustainable, balance the books, maximise revenue, limit expenditures and seek to gain a lead over competitors. A Ryanair approach has been shown not to work and they themselves accepted they had cut and axed and maximised over and above the limit. That limit is set, tacitly, by customers and in the same way the club, while doing all of the things above, must not jeopardise the brand or customer loyalty. If football is a business, as has become a major factor in this thread, then it is the business of entertainment. The business of entertainment relies on attachment. I don't need to point out in explicit terms what happens when attachment reduces. It also has to be balanced with performance. In this age of Netflix, cheap flights, smartphones, coffee shops the only real asset we have is attachment and, if we look at our attachment, comes at an early age. What the board has to do is balance attachment and performance. As we have seen performances can swing quite rapidly, but if you undermine attachment, especially amongst our younger fans, then safeguarding the future, being sustainable, balancing the books, maximising revenue fall - and all you can do is keep limiting expenditure. Most football fans are soft, it's the cold, hardened ones who would never appear at the stadium. So cold, hardened decisions, I assert, will have a disproportionate effect.

A footballing decision, a decision based on maximising advantage in the game of football, it could be argued, would value and utilise Gary, our most experienced, longest serving player, captain and qualified coach to lead what is a very young team. He is already quite the future coach apparently - UEFA A licence and qualified PE teacher ( knows something about educating young players). A footballing decision would look at the dressing room, morale, harmony, stability, and leadership from having Gary there. How many times are we told about unity in football teams? Unless Gary is a deeply dislikeable person and disruptive, in which case... Not to mention he played more than 25 times last season and is also still a player in his own right, and the duo preferred are no less susceptible to injury or loss of form because of last season’s late run. I would call it a business decision. A bird in the hand is worth three in the bush. This is like the NHS bus - we dont know how the money saved will be actually used and whether it would even be a saving in a cost-benefit analysis. All the speculation of Gary leaving is moot anyway. What club is willing to give an ‘unwanted’ 34-year-old Scottish Championship defender a one year contract, a contract that would entice him away from his home for the last 7 years, a contract that would need to be significantly better than what he already possesses? What would it take for any of us to leave our jobs, or earlier than our existing contract, and also move home too? There is no land of milk and honey for Gary except at ICT for the next year and it was wishful thinking on the club’s behalf to think so - I can see why these mystical ‘three young dynamic players’ would be a result, absolutely, but it was a business decision to forego inspiration, harmony, leadership and a player on the very, very remote chance a club will come in and take Gary and it was that trade-off I have issue with. Had there been a club like Gretna trying to steamroll through the lower divisions - potentially, but there’s not. I think Carl should be worried if a young player in his position pops up soon. Perhaps ‘legends’ will become a hushed word at ICT - don’t deserve legends if the end is to try and shaft them. I don’t want a club fashioned in the Mr Burns mould, perhaps I’m just sentimental.

A very interesting and informative post hislopsoffsideagain. Both Gary and Carl signed their contracts at 31, the former for 3 years and the latter for two. They will both be 34 when they finish their contracts. Regardless of what wage it is, there is no chance he will get a two year deal, or a one year deal on noticeably better terms thus there is no rational reason to leave so he will stay, under a cloud, and reminisce during his seventh and last season for the club on the 220-odd appearances he made and maybe rue that he won't be able to move up from 6th to 4th in all-time appearances for the club because they wanted three new players or a CEO or whatever else the money was earmarked for. We should, by rights, be seeing Gary off at the end of the season, even as a sub in the final home game, or at the end of the game if it's close in a meaningful way. Not sure how much feels that will have. I disagree with the 'too sentimental/it's business' line. Football is complete sentiment - emotion - as anyone in the ground can see (to varying degrees, granted). If it's a business, our ROI is not in money, but emotion. Gary is no volunteer, he was paid for the work he did. He still had work to do. The only players above him in terms of appearances were which 5? I cannot readily support the board and the manager over their issue with Gary. Gary's wage, whatever we assume it is, was ok last season and thus not a major issue, else it would have been dealt with sooner. It is a ruthless opportunistic gamble to cut costs based on a surplus of stock and short dates akin to a toffee yoghurt in the co-op. I can see why people support it, we have become content with austerity and conditioned to such practices, to see a service in pounds and pence saved, and believe that if we keep cutting costs we'll become successful, as if more negativity will turn into happiness. As with the Council, as with schools, as with healthcare, the cuts are made on frontline services, but you'll always see funding for back-end positions. Football at this level is much less a business and much more a public service. Like schools, like hospitals, it's raison d'être is not to make money for shareholders but to provide a service. I'm stretching now to compare Gary to a nurse, but better that than regard him as disposable, like the toffee yoghurt at 10pm.