New announcer dude on the park

[TheKnowledge]

I can see what Bird Dawg is saying about the warning but if I had been given a vailed warning I wouldn't take it seriously. If they had said "Post about the stadium ownership again and you'll be out", then yeah, I would take it seriously. If I was told "You watch because we know, and you know, as does everyone else so just you watch or you know what will happen to you", or something like that, then I would just take that as a jobbie bag just attempting to scare me.

THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE

[RiG]

At this current moment in time the coments section of the Courier story have disappeared...

[Snow]

At this current moment in time the coments section of the Courier story have disappeared...

There's 5 comments there now. I think the comments 'disappear' momentarily, whilst others are being added.

[Guest]

You seem to be the only one thinking he has a case against the club. If you are so bothered about it and so hell bent on retaining that opinion you can easily go and make use of the search facility on this site. It's pretty easy to have a look through all of a particular persons posts if you so wish.

Not really RiG, Don's profile page is set as private for a start, I have used the search facility but thousands of threads get thrown up on the subjects of "stadium" "ownership" and many other keywords, you have said yourself Don has been posting like this for months, it is pretty hard researching the subject when it is so fragmented but then it is possible that this is a deliberate ploy. Would it not be easier for Don to copy and paste from his the records he has kept or does he not wish to because putting all the info in one place may take away from the effect of letting us all fill in the blanks ourselves, please don't shoot me for making assumptions- Don has been encouraging it for months.

[Kirishima]

"...he indicated that he would rather have the right to free speech as opposed to being announcer. We have acceded to this request." (Courier)

Acceded to this request, i.e. you go along with it! That it's either free speech or a volunteer position, but not both. Who was the spokesperson...the same one that drew up Marius's contract? Can't believe they have the gall to try and justify this one...no, sorry I can completely understand it, as itis par for the course. Yet again, the club is in the paper because of stupid actions, David Sutherlands Supporters Trust rant, the ridiculous court case, and now this. The list is getting longer...I wonder if they know they are incompetent, or believe they are pretty smashing chaps all round?

[RiG]

Not really RiG,

I just brought up all of his posts in about 7 seconds. It's not at all difficult.

you have said yourself Don has been posting like this for months, it is pretty hard researching the subject when it is so fragmented but then it is possible that this is a deliberate ploy.

Good grief

Would it not be easier for Don to copy and paste from his the records he has kept or does he not wish to because putting all the info in one place may take away from the effect of letting us all fill in the blanks ourselves, please don't shoot me for making assumptions- Don has been encouraging it for months.

I don't think there are any blanks. Certainly not from him. The club are the ones who are seemingly unwilling to fill the fans in on events as they stand. Best direct some of your questions their way.

[Johnboy]

This, for me, was the significant question (particularly, the 3rd para) raised by CaleyD, it's absolutely pathetic that the only way the board can respond to it, is to shoot the messenger....

Quote :

I want to make it clear that my main objection in regard to stadium ownership are more to do with how it happened as oppose to it happening at all. What bothers me and needs answered is why it ended up in the hands of a private individual/business when we were told it was being moved to a Charitable Trust.

Some might think that it makes no difference, but it makes a big difference. A trust, especially a charitable trust, must be set up serve a specific cause. When the Charitable Trust was being talked about we were told that once it cleared its feet of the debt then any income it made would be used to benefit the Inverness sporting community. We were also told that ICT would have a stake in that Trust, and as such, some say in the activity of the trust and a legal right/claim to any benefits realised by the trust. In effect their was always the thought/belief that "ICT will get something back from the deal in future" and benefit in both the short and long term.

How would you feel if you had a Trust fund, only to discover that when you turned 21 and were due to start receiving that the solicitors had actually given everything to a private individual who was earning from your money/assets and had no legal responsibility to give you so much as a penny? And to then rub salt in the wound they wanted to charge you rent to remain in the family home?

I've been raising (and investigating) these concerns for years so my thoughts and feelings on it are not driven by any "low" that came from relegation or the rapid decline we seem to be witnessing as a result.

For the most part, ICT got to where they did thanks to the efforts of those on the playing/coaching/management side. Our off field activities have always been a run in a reactive shambles, the "we'll take care of that when it happens" approach, and it should be no surprise to anyone that this has finally caught up with us.

Furthermore, I have never been an advocate of the "Directors should be throwing in their money" argument. It shouldn't, for the most part, be needed. To qualify that, I appreciate that running a football club without occasional investment is a near impossible task, but there's many ways to attract that investment/sponsorship which go beyond selling the family silver and it can even be done without the need to sell shares...at least on a permanent basis.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Johnboy

[Guest]

I just brought up all of his posts in about 7 seconds. It's not at all difficult.

Please tell me how, it would be most appreciated, instead of trying to goad me.

[RiG]

I am not goading you.

Go into the particular poster and on the left hand side of the screen there is a drop down menu from which you can select "Find All Posts By" or something along similar lines.

EDIT: Another way to do it is to hover over their name in a thread e.g. point your cursor over RiG and you will get a drop down menu with similar options there. I forgot about that one.

Edited February 2, 2010 by RiG

[Guest]

I am not goading you.

Go into the particular poster and on the left hand side of the screen there is a drop down menu from which you can select "Find All Posts By" or something along similar lines.

Thank you RiG.

[CaleyD]

There's no quote from Darren in the article....in fact the comments are simply attributed to a "club spokesman"....typical of the faceless corporation that ICT has become and the root of many of the issues that arise, IMO.

The comments from the club confirm what I have said....I refused a gagging order and suffered the consequences. It's there in back and white for everyone to see and there's no denial or counter argument offered for anything I have said.

If people want to start pulling employment law issues to defend the club over the matter then you have to accept that those rights apply to me as well as the club and due process should have been followed...and it wasn't. Again I emphasise it's not the WHAT but the HOW that is so disappointing.

It could be argued that the club were trying to deny me my legal entitlement to Freedom of Expression and unless they believed that I was passing on confidential information obtained whilst undertaking my duties as a club servant then they do not have that right.

I can be accused of many things, but poor professional standards is not one of them. If that wasn't the case then I would be listing off a whole plethora of things that I had been told/witnessed while performing my announcers duties.

Any comments or opinions I have expressed regarding the clubs financial situation or the stadium ownership issue have come from information that was/is in the public domain.

What annoys me about the board? The fact that you are their best friend when they want something from you and cast aside regardless of consequences to the club when you refuse to tow the line. It's not the first time this has happened to me (and others) with ICT and maybe I'm the fool and can have little complaint because I keep going back for more....but keep going back I will.

[Scotty]

rather than lookup all of Don's posts or ask him to do more work and cut and paste everything together in one place would it not be simpler for the club, or more specifically, the major shareholder just to come out and explain it all in words we plebs can understand?

Unlike Don, who has extensive experience in the banking field, when it comes to financial matters, I am a relatively simple man. I work, I get my wages in the bank, my expenses come out via direct debit and what I am left with is mine to spend. Even the portfolio in my personal pension plan is taken care of by my bank. So the minutiae of all this alleged or potential skullduggery goes right over my head. I will admit that I did wonder at the time how the debt managed to disappear but bottom line in all of this was that at the time I was more interested in discussing the fact that it had gone than I was in figuring out the machinations or method of its disappearance.

Surely it is simple, if there is nothing to hide, and everything is above board, then why does it seem that no-one involved is willing to debunk Don's theories, comment on the story, or clear up any misconceptions? Not only would this kill the story but I am sure some of the principles would love the opportunity to see Don with egg on his face.

If Don is right - and I can say with all sincerity that I hope he is not - then it doesnt bear thinking about.

[TheKnowledge]

Are they just hoping it will go away, like Marius and Barrowman?

Caley D, please ignore County when they come and try to get your services.

[PullMyFinger]

19th October 2006 CaleyD

Neither DS, His Family or any of his companies own any of the stands, they are owned by the Charitable Trust, which in effect makes the owners of it those who would benefit from any profits made by the Trust. I believe the Inverness Sports community is the benefactors of the Trust and Tullochs (and possibly others) underwrite the Trusts debts. If things went belly up tomorrow and the stadium had to be sold then any money left after clearing the trusts debts would be used to promote/benefit sport in the Inverness area.

Tulloch/DS/Directors will have made no direct money from any of their dealins with ICT, but what they would have generates is a lot of goodwill, which is good for any business.

Why do people find it so hard to believe that a person just wants to give back to the community/area that has served them so well without having some kind of hidden motive???

What happened to turn your mind CaleyD?

And where has all the good will gone?

If it hadn't been for David Sutherland would our club have survived to play in the SPL?

Would we have survived at all?

The investments made were timely and I thank David Sutherland and Tullochs for that, I would however like to see a plan put into place that would see the ownership of the stadium transferred back to the club. If only I could win the EuroMillions........

[Johnboy]

Another significant post here in an exchange with Charles Bannerman....

As CD rightly says all the claims he has made concerning the ownership of the stadium are in the public domain...

Any member of the board could probably put this story to bed right now.... If they wanted to.

Quote :

The Charitable Trust DO NOT own the stadium or the leasehold for the land, these are held by companies wholly owned by David Sutherland.....confirmed by searches done at the Land Registry. These documents also detail the amount of rent being paid...and I can assure you it is far from being way below what I would consider commercial rates.

The Charitable Trust was set up, but it has never traded a single penny and is, according to companies house, a dormant company.

Explain why ICTFC have no shareholding in the company that owns the new stands when they invested in the region of ?250,000 in the project?

Explain why minutes of Highland Council Meetings (these are public records) detail that the loan they gave was in the name of Inverness Caledonian Thistle Properties Ltd and not the Charitable Trust...which you claim owns the the Stadium?

[CaleyD]

I really don't want to turn this into a "stadium ownership" thread/issue but what changed my mind was an underlying niggle that it all seemed to good to be true.....an instinct honed by years as a compliance auditor within financial services industry where it was my job to follow up on these things and unearth the truth.....so I took my own advice (from the end of that thread), registered with companies house and started looking in to it and the circumstances surrounding it.

[RiG]

rather than lookup all of Don's posts or ask him to do more work and cut and paste everything together in one place would it not be simpler for the club, or more specifically, the major shareholder just to come out and explain it all in words we plebs can understand?

I doubt it. They wouldn't even do that face to fac with Don when he asked them to. Why should they do it for the fans?

[PullMyFinger]

Can I ask you to split this thread so we can continue to discuss the ownership of the stadium in a thread of its own please, CaleyD.

[Johnboy]

I strongly suspect that the stadium ownership issue is likely to be the one that will have upset certain board members/shareholders.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Johnboy

[stevico1]

Once again the club have let things turn into a PR disaster.

A faceless spokesman, neither the man that made the decision or his puppets have the courage to put their name to it, but quite happy to name Darren again.

"He would rather his free speech than the stadium announcers job" what planet are these guys on.

Shameless, Arrogant and so wrapped up in their own self preservation they care for nothing else.

Edited February 2, 2010 by stevico1

[Guest]

Having trawled through your posts Don I would like to say that if true (you have stated where to look for the information so I tend to believe you but am yet to confirm) then I apologise for getting so shirty but as you can appreciate that when the subject of the club comes up 90% of the users on here will be emotional about it, all I want is the facts.

I will state that I have to still agree with the club's stance in so far as terminating your position, however I would have taken the same course of action as you did and the result is an incredible hand played by yourself. You have certainly got people thinking and with any luck the club will now answer the questions which are needing answered.

I also have to say that I admire your tenacity and commitment, you have possibly sacrificed your access to seeing the team which you have so much passion for to bring a greater good to ICT for all of us, I tip my hat to you sir, well done.

You are a dog with a f*cking bone alright!

[Joonya]

RevBirdog...

I find it a little surprising how you seem to be the only person defending the club over this. As I understand it, and you've said it yourself, you have had exchanges with Don before about various topics on this forum before, but should that really be reason to try and rock the boat further?

Don has always been as honest as he can be in relation to his opinions on and off the forum - if we had one man like him on the ICT board (i.e someone who spoke their mind AND the truth) then our club, I feel, would be in a far better position all round!

The mere comment in the Courier of 'When Darren MacKintosh raised the matter of the comments with him, he indicated that he would rather have the right to free speech as opposed to being announcer. We have acceded to this request' brings up 3 striking notes...

1-"When Darren MacKintosh raised the matter of the comments with him" - This shows the board have no backbone/balls/both to deal with things themselves, and have made Darren their scape-goat/puppet

2-"he indicated that he would rather have the right to free speech as opposed to being announcer" - Shows they did indeed try to extract Donalds right to an opinion (despite them already knowing of not only these, but his investigations too) whilst being unable to conclude what exactly it was that p!ssed them off so much.

3-"We have acceded to this request" - It's not a request. A request would mean resigning, which is obviously not the case. It shows how f***in spineless the board are in coming face to face with their problems and issues.

Christ, they haven't even had the bottle to name the person who commented on behalf of the club. And what the hell was so inappropriate in his comments that caused offence anyway? they dont even elaborate on that!!! In fact, on more than one occasion, don has been the front figure in preventing inappropriate comments towards the club, staff, players fans, etc etc.

[Georgeios]

BINGO!! its all IHE's fault, blame him... just cos.

[PullMyFinger]

RevBirdog...

I find it a little surprising how you seem to be the only person defending the club over this. As I understand it, and you've said it yourself, you have had exchanges with Don before about various topics on this forum before, but should that really be reason to try and rock the boat further?

Don has always been as honest as he can be in relation to his opinions on and off the forum - if we had one man like him on the ICT board (i.e someone who spoke their mind AND the truth) then our club, I feel, would be in a far better position all round!

The mere comment in the Courier of 'When Darren MacKintosh raised the matter of the comments with him, he indicated that he would rather have the right to free speech as opposed to being announcer. We have acceded to this request' brings up 3 striking notes...

1-"When Darren MacKintosh raised the matter of the comments with him" - This shows the board have no backbone/balls/both to deal with things themselves, and have made Darren their scape-goat/puppet

2-"he indicated that he would rather have the right to free speech as opposed to being announcer" - Shows they did indeed try to extract Donalds right to an opinion (despite them already knowing of not only these, but his investigations too) whilst being unable to conclude what exactly it was that p!ssed them off so much.

3-"We have acceded to this request" - It's not a request. A request would mean resigning, which is obviously not the case. It shows how f***in spineless the board are in coming face to face with their problems and issues.

Christ, they haven't even had the bottle to name the person who commented on behalf of the club. And what the hell was so inappropriate in his comments that caused offence anyway? they dont even elaborate on that!!! In fact, on more than one occasion, don has been the front figure in preventing inappropriate comments towards the club, staff, players fans, etc etc.

Why is it surprising? Should there be more defending the Board?

If I had a volunteer who was making waves in my organisation I'd want him to stop.

1. Was Darren CaleyD's line manager in that post? If so he was the man to raise the issue.

2. It was not his right to an opinion just his expression of those opinions on here. He has possibly shown DS up in a bad light by raising questions about DS's motives around the property dealings around ICT, even though it is still possible that DS still has the clubs best interests at heart. I can't blame DS for trying to protect his childrens inheritence.

3. CaleyD made it clear that he wished to continue to share his views (good man) which the club could not accept. My way or the highway?

Simples.

[Guest]

RevBirdog...

I find it a little surprising how you seem to be the only person defending the club over this. As I understand it, and you've said it yourself, you have had exchanges with Don before about various topics on this forum before, but should that really be reason to try and rock the boat further?

Don has always been as honest as he can be in relation to his opinions on and off the forum - if we had one man like him on the ICT board (i.e someone who spoke their mind AND the truth) then our club, I feel, would be in a far better position all round!

The mere comment in the Courier of 'When Darren MacKintosh raised the matter of the comments with him, he indicated that he would rather have the right to free speech as opposed to being announcer. We have acceded to this request' brings up 3 striking notes...

1-"When Darren MacKintosh raised the matter of the comments with him" - This shows the board have no backbone/balls/both to deal with things themselves, and have made Darren their scape-goat/puppet

2-"he indicated that he would rather have the right to free speech as opposed to being announcer" - Shows they did indeed try to extract Donalds right to an opinion (despite them already knowing of not only these, but his investigations too) whilst being unable to conclude what exactly it was that p!ssed them off so much.

3-"We have acceded to this request" - It's not a request. A request would mean resigning, which is obviously not the case. It shows how f***in spineless the board are in coming face to face with their problems and issues.

Christ, they haven't even had the bottle to name the person who commented on behalf of the club. And what the hell was so inappropriate in his comments that caused offence anyway? they dont even elaborate on that!!! In fact, on more than one occasion, don has been the front figure in preventing inappropriate comments towards the club, staff, players fans, etc etc.

What kind of occupation do you have? Would your boss let you keep working there if you had been as vocal and as prominent to the upper management as Don against the business dealings of the companies major shareholder? I severely doubt it. Whilst I admire Don for his stance and his bringing this to our attention I do suspect that Don knew exactly what he was doing, Don is known to push back harder when threatened and a warning to cease and desist would be seen as a challenge by him, rightly so, but look at the sh!tstorm he has managed to create, look at the publicity he has managed to bring to his cause. I do admire his actions, now, but please try to stop seeing him as the victim.