New announcer dude on the park

[Kirishima]

Pull my finger you're pulling my leg!!

[PullMyFinger]

[Harry Chibber]

Has anyone thought to ask the club directly through email??

Everytime I've emailed the club they've come back with a response is there any reason they wouldn't on this occasion?

No one seems to have come back to me on this so thought I'd ask again...

Has anyone written directly to the club with a detailed question regarding stadium ownership? Caley D you not keen to send an email and see what sort of responce you receive??

Be careful what you ask for....

I'd just like to point out I'm not sticking up for the board here and CD I have genuine sympathy with your position but I think if we are going to get to the bottom of this we need to have a balanced arguement rather than a witch hunt.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Harry Chibber

[PullMyFinger]

The board has done nothing wrong though, neither has CaleyD other than ask awkward questions about our major shareholders business.

David Sutherland probably saved this club from liquidation and invested his own money to advance the club into the SPL. His purchasing of the stadium through several of his companies is a concern for a lot of fans but that doesn't mean he is going to sell out. His actions to this date have been for the good of the club and his non-involvement at board level suggests he trusts his peers to look after not only the interests of the club but also his own interests (minimise running costs).

I don't have an issue with David Sutherland or the Board, other than the fact they left it too late to sack Brewster. This I am sure was a learning opportunity for them.

[Scotty]

The board has done nothing wrong though, neither has CaleyD other than ask awkward questions about our major shareholders business.

He is not asking questions about the shareholder's business, I dont think any of his building or associated companies or his farm have been mentioned. What he is asking questions about is the disposal of a club asset (the stadium) and in a lesser manner, a club liability (the debt) with the disconnect being that it does not seem to be under the management of the body that the club's other shareholders voted for. If this could be clarified, the issue would go away.

David Sutherland probably saved this club from liquidation and invested his own money to advance the club into the SPL. His purchasing of the stadium through several of his companies is a concern for a lot of fans but that doesn't mean he is going to sell out.

I agree with this statement 100%. His contribution to the club is not and never has been in question and I would say that most fans, myself included, cared not a jot whether he made a few quid out of the deal by positioning himself and his companies in the best spot to take advantage of any potential "leisure village" development in the Longman area as we all thought that ICT would ride on his coat-tails and benefit too.

However, as with the point above, it is the lack of clarity on what should be a simple question about the stadium ownership that sets sphincters twitching. As a shareholder, my recollection is that I (and everyone else) voted to transfer the stadium to a charitable trust. If this was not done, or it was subsequently moved to another company then should the other shareholders not have been consulted? If the stadium is owned by anything other than the charitable trust then it is not what we voted for.

Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation, perhaps there is no ulterior or dark motive in all of this but the continued silence on the matter from both the major shareholder and the board of directors of the club only serves to allow this story, and its accompanying conspiracy theories to grow arms and legs and become far more sinister than it may be in reality. Again it is a failure to communicate.

His actions to this date have been for the good of the club and his non-involvement at board level suggests he trusts his peers to look after not only the interests of the club but also his own interests (minimise running costs).

Again, I agree with you. The public actions of our major shareholder do certainly appear to have been for the good of the club. He has dipped his hand in his pocket to finance things that perhaps wouldnt have been possible otherwise, and he has also done other things quietly when times were bad (as mentioned in an earlier post of mine). However, lets not get carried away here, he has had some return for all this "philanthropy". He has control over 30% of the shares, he has the right to appoint 3 directors (out of 6) as well as the chairman, and he is heading into his sixth year with his company name as part of our official stadium name. This perhaps is not financial return but it is a return.

I would also question his "non-involvement at board level" as you put it. He may not be on the board of directors of the club but he is - and some might say quite rightly as the single largest shareholder - pulling the strings. If you think he knows anything less than 100% of what goes on at board level, and doesnt express his opinions, then I would suggest that is naive ! Also, if he is so uninvolved, why was it him and not the board who denounced the Supporters Trust chairman over the Brewster sacking?

I don't have an issue with David Sutherland or the Board, other than the fact they left it too late to sack Brewster. This I am sure was a learning opportunity for them.

I have several issues with the club right now and unfortunately I cant agree with you that anything has been taken as a learning opportunity as we seem to make the same or similar mistakes on a yearly basis !

- Communication is my #1 issue and has been for more than 10 years. This is the 21st century yet our communication strategies are firmly rooted in the past. A lot of the crap that comes out, whether true or not can be avoided, minimised or even turned on its head with effective communication. Virtually all of the points below suffer from communication issues - either between the parties involved or between club and fans and if we had learned from past mistakes might not have happened or escalated.

If the club are talking to people, be it the trust, this website, fans, shareholders, supporters club, centenary members or any other group then a lot of the grumbles instantly disappear (we have seen this reaction when Boardroom Banter was getting done honestly). If the stadium issue or the finance rumour had been addressed and explained (or debunked) in some manner then they wouldnt take on a life of their own and become the divisive issues that they are. The same applies to anything else .... you proactively take a (breaking?) story and if it is bad you explain it from your point of view and people will normally forgive you or at least appreciate the honesty of the answer, conversely, when something positive happens you take that story and promote the crap out of it .... we never do that, and never seem to learn that sometimes its the best course.

- Brewster sacking. I believe you covered that one but again it was the disdain shown to the fans that stuck in my mind. This was not just a few hundred fans on here, who always get told they are moaning faced w*****s, it was a significant portion of our supporters with no affiliation to this website and yet they were condescendingly denounced.

- Niculae Debacle. I think we have done this to death but yet again, our failure to communicate - this time with the player - was our undoing. If the club thought they had a case then fair enough, but once courts and the sport's governing body have ruled against you then it is time to suck it up, pay the man and move on.

- Contracts. This is where we never learn. Every year we seem to lose someone for a miniscule fee or on a Bosman because we cant offer any more than 2 year contracts (which effectively become 1 and a bit year contracts due to Bosman). It has been compunded even further this year by us not offering anything and communicating what at best is a poor excuse as the reason behind it. It is preposterous to only have 3 players under contract beyond the end of the season.

- Finance. It doesnt matter whether we are actually struggling or not, the club should have closed down this rumour months ago. If we are struggling (which I believe we are) then just tell us. We will understand. Most of us realise that we took a huge hit in revenue between SPL and SFL1 but maybe we dont realise how much. The club could simply have said "yes, things are tight, but here is how we hope to get through it". The best form of spin is sometimes honesty!!! Instead, we have a chairman telling us the board will make every effort to "bounce back" at the first attempt but others saying the opposite, and rumours coming out of the stadium from multiple sources that back all of that up.

- Stadium Ownership. Yet another area where effective communication could have stopped an issue before it had really started. If there is nothing to hide and there is a reason for the apparent or alleged 'slight of hand' in the ownership debate then just come out and explain it. Again, if things are different to what was actually voted on explain it honestrly, be prepared for a rough ride, but ultimately, the fans are not stupid and will accept an explanation if it is a reasonable one.

[CaleyD]

Has anyone thought to ask the club directly through email??

Everytime I've emailed the club they've come back with a response is there any reason they wouldn't on this occasion?

No one seems to have come back to me on this so thought I'd ask again...

Has anyone written directly to the club with a detailed question regarding stadium ownership? Caley D you not keen to send an email and see what sort of responce you receive??

Be careful what you ask for....

I'd just like to point out I'm not sticking up for the board here and CD I have genuine sympathy with your position but I think if we are going to get to the bottom of this we need to have a balanced arguement rather than a witch hunt.

I asked the question regarding Stadium Ownership via an agreed communication route between club and fans (The Boardroom Banter) back in November/December 2008

CaleyD asked: "Can the club clarify exactly which companies own which parts of the stadium (and the land it sits on), why it is not owned by Inverness Caledonian Thistle Trust Ltd as we were led to believe would be/was the case when we transferred it, what lease we have and how we may (or may not) benefit from the terms of that lease if the site was to be sold and we moved elsewhere?

Response

The Club have a long term lease on the ground and as a result of the transaction that took place is debt free with regard to the Stadium. We are not at liberty to discuss the ins and outs of the lease in open forum.

I remember it clearly because I had planned a follow up question in the next issue but got a "friendly warning" that if I pursued it then it would spell the end of the Boardroom Banter there and then so I removed the follow up question so as not to jeopardise the existence of BB....with hindsight it didn't make much difference to the life of BB.

I would love to have a balanced argument....but you can't get that so long as one side remain firmly fixed behind a wall of silence.

[Harry Chibber]

Well at least the question has been asked.... so basically you need someone else to take up the mantle and ask the right questions..

I would but... erm.. I don't know the right questions

[EWS]

We need a member of the press to take up the mantle, however, none of the journos in the area are willing to put their neck on the line.

[CaleyD]

Now that I know I'm only welcome at the Stadium as a paying punter I have contacted those who had volunteered to assist with things such as the videoing to make them aware of the situation.

I have urged these people, if they are still willing/able, to contact the club to offer their assistance and services should the club have a Plan B and are planning to continue what has been started.

Perhaps someone a little less outspoken will be able to pick these things up and run with them to ensure the fans do not miss out as a result of the situation.

[Renegade]

It's interesting to read what some people are saying about Sutherland and the rest of the board. It's obvious from what I and many others can see it'd time for a change in all parts of this club. The man with his finger on the button here, Sutherland is essentially the man who obviously fancies himself as a Donald Trump of Inverness kind of character and in some senses he has succeeded in his agenda. He is essentially the President of Inverness and the surrounding area. The only problem is is that it's a dictatorship. It's still the case with ICT. He currently has a chairman installed who is really nothing more than a mouthpiece for him and it's still a case of what he says goes. That's why Savage (someone with at least a few forward thinking ideas) decided to take his business elsewhere. If I remember correctly he said his position was being "diluted" by Sutherland, this to me says it all.

Call it a conspiracy if you like but I don't think this clubs wants to go forward sometimes. How many times have ICT been so so close to a huge victory and then blown it at the last minute? It's happened time and time again. Again call it a conspiracy theory if you like but the amount of times it has happened makes me wonder if this is part of a plan to stop this club from becoming too big. Too big in a sense whereby if the club were to go to the "next level", others would want a part of it, thus Sutherland losing is tight grip on the club.

There also seems to be a lot of talk of change, of a deep resentment for those on the inside, an "us and them" feeling. If that is the case then changes have to come. Words are all good but we have to see the fans rise up. We are the groundswell, we can make the change we just have to know what it is we want to do and how to do it. We did it with Brewster, we succeeded in getting rid of him. We can do it again. Words are all good but we have to rise up and lead this club forward to the next level, if not we may not even have a club to follow in the not too disant future.

[Harry Chibber]

Call it a conspiracy if you like but I don't think this clubs wants to go forward sometimes. How many times have ICT been so so close to a huge victory and then blown it at the last minute? It's happened time and time again. Again call it a conspiracy theory if you like but the amount of times it has happened makes me wonder if this is part of a plan to stop this club from becoming too big. Too big in a sense whereby if the club were to go to the "next level", others would want a part of it, thus Sutherland losing is tight grip on the club.

really?

[Johnboy]

You might find this interesting, Renegade... (as might quite a few others)

See here

Edited February 12, 2010 by Johnboy

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Nice to see some historians on here !! Scotty - I feel that you summed up the history lesson well. Lets face it Sutherland's money went a long way to keeping this club alive - but there was clear personal reasons for that. Until we hit the SPL most things in the garden were smelling of roses - but then the naeivity and amateurness of the people in control have produced a constant manure odour. Unfortunately the main muck spreader is spreading even more dung in order to keep some gardeners from bring the Dump back to life.

As per usual I expect that many will only believe these words in a couple of years when it all comes to light - as always seems to happen.