Season Tickets + Resignation Confirmation

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

It would also be useful if journalists did not chicken out from putting key questions to DF in press conferences. For instance, in the latest he said he did not know why there was a problem with fans coming through the gate to support the players. Surely the journalists could have explained the reason to help DF understand the problem? If the conference is then stopped because the questions about player treatment, for instance, are too uncomfortable for DF to answer, then the press would have a new story.  DF can bat away questions about SG but surely it is legitimate for what seems to be our highest paid manager in 30 years to be given some tough questions with regard to his role?

As one of the journalists regularly attending press conferences at this and other clubs, I’ll become Devil’s Advocate and suggest that managers and players are there to answer questions about football. In Caley Thistle’s case, Duncan Ferguson is the only person from the club that has spoken to the media or to anyone else about anything at all over an period now of more than two months and he has already been asked questions that are beyond his remit.

Over that two month period, I and other journalists have made attempts to obtain a club spokesman for comment and have also submitted questions on the club’s “status” through the official channels…. and they have been routinely ignored.

There is a limit to what the manager can reasonably be expected to answer. You won’t find news journalists asking a Council’s Director of Education questions about the operation of the Social Work department.

[caley1]

13 minutes ago, big cherly said:

I agree DD and I know your not having by a dig at me, more a plea for action on a collective basis of the fans (it will always only be them), to raise the level of objection (to the uncertainty of the way the club is being manipulated my certain individuals for there own end / greed), by protesting outside and during the game. 100% with you.

For me this is where the Trust should be leading from. Apologies for raising this old chestnut of mine again, but if the trust cannot be proactive or can initiate radical action to the way the club is being manipulated if front of our eyes (when it is possibly in its strongest ever position), when can it?? 
 

Maybe we need our own Greta to emerge and gather fan support in the way you suggest. (I’m past it!!).  Getting a demo would get onto the telly and papers for sure!!  I would be one to follow such person/demo.

I for one will not accept SG remaining in any form (direct or indirect) at the helms of the club. 

 
 

 

 

I agree I think the trust are a bit too slow about a lot of this . They have asked for answers and mostly met by silence and leave it at that hoping something is just around the corner . Any other club trust it would be organising a protest / demonstration to show as SG is so keen to tell people it’s a handful of fans . Clearly it’s not . It’s our club not his he’s only an employee who most think could even be sacked let alone resign.

[big cherly]

2 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

As one of the journalists regularly attending press conferences at this and other clubs, I’ll become Devil’s Advocate and suggest that managers and players are there to answer questions about football. In Caley Thistle’s case, Duncan Ferguson is the only person from the club that has spoken to the media or to anyone else about anything at all over an period now of more than two months and he has already been asked questions that are beyond his remit.

Over that two month period, I and other journalists have made attempts to obtain a club spokesman for comment and have also submitted questions on the club’s “status” through the official channels…. and they have been routinely ignored.

There is a limit to what the manager can reasonably be expected to answer. You won’t find news journalists asking a Council’s Director of Education questions about the operation of the Social Work department.

Trouble is for me the press are too often (for right or wrong) see as being the lapdog and mouthpiece of the club spouting what they only want to be ‘spun’ and avoid probing questions.
More ‘excuses’ (“we’re limited what we can report”) just feed this view for many!! 

[Robert]

A protest would risk not achieving its objective. How many people would actually turn up on a summer (if we can use that term this year!) Saturday afternoon in the middle of the holiday period?

I think it would end up being a small number, which would not achieve anything other than allowing Gardiner to gloat.

It may also spook the investors which would damage the medium and long term future too if it caused them to have doubts.

[+snorbens_caleyman]

6 minutes ago, caley1 said:

I agree I think the trust are a bit too slow about a lot of this . They have asked for answers and mostly met by silence and leave it at that hoping something is just around the corner . Any other club trust it would be organising a protest / demonstration to show as SG is so keen to tell people it’s a handful of fans .

Difficult one.  The Trust has to work with whoever is in charge of the club, now and in the future.  Even if Gardiner is removed in the near future, surely many of the current board will remain.  So gaining a reputation for "rabble-rousing" or stirring things up - which is how the Board would see it - might not be the best thing for the Trust to do.

I would expect them to continue to attempt - frequently and persistently - to have dialogue with the club management.  Diplomatic, but very clear about the problems.  And neither condemning nor condoning actual protests.

[STFU]

49 minutes ago, Robert said:

A protest would risk not achieving its objective. How many people would actually turn up on a summer (if we can use that term this year!) Saturday afternoon in the middle of the holiday period?

I think it would end up being a small number, which would not achieve anything other than allowing Gardiner to gloat.

It may also spook the investors which would damage the medium and long term future too if it caused them to have doubts.

 

48 minutes ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Difficult one.  The Trust has to work with whoever is in charge of the club, now and in the future.  Even if Gardiner is removed in the near future, surely many of the current board will remain.  So gaining a reputation for "rabble-rousing" or stirring things up - which is how the Board would see it - might not be the best thing for the Trust to do.

I would expect them to continue to attempt - frequently and persistently - to have dialogue with the club management.  Diplomatic, but very clear about the problems.  And neither condemning nor condoning actual protests.

So fans do nothing?

[Yngwie]

For me a protest would make more sense than a boycott. It’s what other teams’ fans almost always do when unhappy with their club. I thought it was an accepted principle in football that fans support the team through thick and thin, and regardless of any shambles off the pitch.

Personally, I am currently willing to give the club the benefit of the doubt in that the signs are that they are trying to change, with new owners in the pipeline, Kelty reversed and the CEO having resigned. All things the supporters have wanted/demanded.

I have also been uncomfortable with the Trust encouraging fans to starve the club of what it is in desperate need of, money. If everybody had followed their advice, we would not have a match today and we wouldn’t have a team any more. For a Supporters Trust to adopt this stance was an extreme and drastic measure that I’m sure wasn’t taken lightly, but was taken without consultation and without any adequate justification or regard for the inevitable consequences if everyone followed their recommendation. Because of this, I can’t currently bring myself to renew membership.

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

5 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

As one of the journalists regularly attending press conferences at this and other clubs, I’ll become Devil’s Advocate and suggest that managers and players are there to answer questions about football. In Caley Thistle’s case, Duncan Ferguson is the only person from the club that has spoken to the media or to anyone else about anything at all over an period now of more than two months and he has already been asked questions that are beyond his remit.

Over that two month period, I and other journalists have made attempts to obtain a club spokesman for comment and have also submitted questions on the club’s “status” through the official channels…. and they have been routinely ignored.

There is a limit to what the manager can reasonably be expected to answer. You won’t find news journalists asking a Council’s Director of Education questions about the operation of the Social Work department.

That is why I said 'Player treatment.'  One of the reasons supporters have negative support for DF is his apparent lack of remorse for the treatment of all players out of contract.  Was he responsible for advising them that their contracts would not be renewed?  

[STFU]

3 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

I have also been uncomfortable with the Trust encouraging fans to starve the club of what it is in desperate need of, money. If everybody had followed their advice, we would not have a match today and we wouldn’t have a team any more. For a Supporters Trust to adopt this stance was an extreme and drastic measure that I’m sure wasn’t taken lightly, but was taken without consultation and without any adequate justification or regard for the inevitable consequences if everyone followed their recommendation. Because of this, I can’t currently bring myself to renew membership.

That's a total rewrite of what played out.

Fans were consulted at the meeting and the trust then went against the majority view that there should be a coordinated boycott.

It was only more recently that the trust changed their stance on this.

As I already said in another post they were going to organise/back a protest but that never transpired.  This seemed to be offered as an alternative to supporting a boycott.

Right now it does feel like the trust are no better than the club in promising one thing and doing another and that's not good.

We both appear dissatisfied with them but for different reasons and that is telling in itself.

[highlandexile]

This is a horrible situation we find ourselves in as fans.  We don't want to be seen supporting the current board/SG but we are still supporters of the team.

Personally I'm going to the game today after a lot thinking about it.  It's a pity that a protest isn't happening before the game as I think that would show the feeling of the supporters rather than just not going to the game.  

I Worry that without a protest a low crowd will just be put down to fan apathy rather than a boycott.

I also don't buy the argument that a protest would in any way jepordise the investment talks.  Rather the opposite it would show the club has support and is worth saving.

 

 

 

[+snorbens_caleyman]

31 minutes ago, STFU said:

So fans do nothing?

Did I say that?  No. 

Of course the fans can protest.  In fact, without checking, I think I suggested this last season when Dodds was still around.

All I said was that the Trust might wish to consider whether to support or arrange such a protest.

Robert pointed out, reasonably, that a protest might spook investors.  Maybe, but perhaps only if they were planning to keep the current CEO around.

There's also nothing to stop fans writing/emailing directly to the SLO with their views.  Even if these aren't read, a sizeable inbox sends its own message.

Anyway, it's Sneck.  When did anyone last protest about anything in the town? 

[dougal]

1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

As one of the journalists regularly attending press conferences at this and other clubs, I’ll become Devil’s Advocate and suggest that managers and players are there to answer questions about football. In Caley Thistle’s case, Duncan Ferguson is the only person from the club that has spoken to the media or to anyone else about anything at all over an period now of more than two months and he has already been asked questions that are beyond his remit.

Over that two month period, I and other journalists have made attempts to obtain a club spokesman for comment and have also submitted questions on the club’s “status” through the official channels…. and they have been routinely ignored.

There is a limit to what the manager can reasonably be expected to answer. You won’t find news journalists asking a Council’s Director of Education questions about the operation of the Social Work department.

^^^^^
No back bone whatsoever 

Are we surprised none whatsoever 

Pathetic 

Dougal

[big cherly]

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

For me a protest would make more sense than a boycott. It’s what other teams’ fans almost always do when unhappy with their club. I thought it was an accepted principle in football that fans support the team through thick and thin, and regardless of any shambles off the pitch.

Personally, I am currently willing to give the club the benefit of the doubt in that the signs are that they are trying to change, with new owners in the pipeline, Kelty reversed and the CEO having resigned. All things the supporters have wanted/demanded.

I have also been uncomfortable with the Trust encouraging fans to starve the club of what it is in desperate need of, money. If everybody had followed their advice, we would not have a match today and we wouldn’t have a team any more. For a Supporters Trust to adopt this stance was an extreme and drastic measure that I’m sure wasn’t taken lightly, but was taken without consultation and without any adequate justification or regard for the inevitable consequences if everyone followed their recommendation. Because of this, I can’t currently bring myself to renew membership.

Correction - The fans at the meeting wanted (and for the most) still want SG gone. Not resigned (and hidden in the background still pulling some levers). 
It’s a choice want each individual fans does and your entitled to your view. I will always support my team ICT but not at any case where it is detrimental to its future existence and ‘soul’ of what it means to the fans, city and region! 
 

Edited July 20, 2024 by big cherly

[Robert]

2 hours ago, STFU said:

 

So fans do nothing?

I didn’t say that either!

I think the apparent slow take up of season tickets and the likely poor attendance today shows that fans are acting as they see fit.

As you’ve said, it’s personal choice whether to attend or not.

I’m not going today but, unlike many others, I normally do attend the League Cup group games.

[Leaky Blinder]

3 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

As one of the journalists regularly attending press conferences at this and other clubs, I’ll become Devil’s Advocate and suggest that managers and players are there to answer questions about football. In Caley Thistle’s case, Duncan Ferguson is the only person from the club that has spoken to the media or to anyone else about anything at all over an period now of more than two months and he has already been asked questions that are beyond his remit.

Over that two month period, I and other journalists have made attempts to obtain a club spokesman for comment and have also submitted questions on the club’s “status” through the official channels…. and they have been routinely ignored.

There is a limit to what the manager can reasonably be expected to answer. You won’t find news journalists asking a Council’s Director of Education questions about the operation of the Social Work department.

I'd contest questions around the treatment of players are closer to Fergusons remit than what insight he has to potential investors. The difference is the latter gives media a bigger headline despite his comments being "best guesses" with regards to a "new owner" by his own admission 

[Leaky Blinder]

2 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

 

Anyway, it's Sneck.  When did anyone last protest about anything in the town? 

My gran did send a strongly worded letter of complaint to the Courier when the drapers at the Hilton Shops closed 

[Scotty]

5 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

 surely many of the current board will remain.  

Many of them should not. They are complicit in everything bad going on around the club, either directly, or by their inaction and silence. Not one of them broke ranks and spoke publicly over the atrocious treatment of staff, players, fans, sponsors or shareholders over the last several years. If one of them had, then perhaps that person could or should be the one that fans could galvanise behind as we try to rebuild our club. 

 

 

3 hours ago, highlandexile said:

I Worry that without a protest a low crowd will just be put down to fan apathy rather than a boycott.

100% that is the way things will be spun, but we know the truth, as do those in power and any one of them that wants to blame shift should hang their heads in shame. 

[+snorbens_caleyman]

34 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Many of them should not. They are complicit in everything bad going on around the club, either directly, or by their inaction and silence. Not one of them broke ranks and spoke publicly over the atrocious treatment of staff, players, fans, sponsors or shareholders over the last several years.

Scotty, I agree 100% with you.  When I said "surely many will remain", I meant that I just can't see a complete clearout and replacement happening.

Though I would indeed welcome that.  If we survive, then a complete reset - new board, new management and new attitudes to players, fans and community - is desperately needed, even if it means some time in the lower leagues.

[caley1]

2 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Scotty, I agree 100% with you.  When I said "surely many will remain", I meant that I just can't see a complete clearout and replacement happening.

Though I would indeed welcome that.  If we survive, then a complete reset - new board, new management and new attitudes to players, fans and community - is desperately needed, even if it means some time in the lower leagues.

That’s another rumour that when investment happens the whole board have agreed to resign but SG will stay and work with the new investment group . Rumour yes but any truth in it ? 

[+DoofersDad]

9 hours ago, highlandexile said:

This is a horrible situation we find ourselves in as fans.  We don't want to be seen supporting the current board/SG but we are still supporters of the team.

Personally I'm going to the game today after a lot thinking about it.  It's a pity that a protest isn't happening before the game as I think that would show the feeling of the supporters rather than just not going to the game.  

I Worry that without a protest a low crowd will just be put down to fan apathy rather than a boycott.

I also don't buy the argument that a protest would in any way jepordise the investment talks.  Rather the opposite it would show the club has support and is worth saving.

 

 

 

This.  The first home game of the season has now come and gone.  682 paid to attend compared to 1077 against the same team in the same competition this time last year.  That's a drop of just under 37%.  So what do these figures tell us?  Probably not a lot.

Had we not had all the appalling behaviour from the club management in the last season and had simply got relegated, the crowd would likely have been well down in any case.  Remember, this time last year memories of giving Celtic a fright in the Scottish Cup final and getting close to promotion were still fresh.  There was optimism for the new season rather than the disappointment of being in a league below.

In addition ticket prices have risen.  Like highlandexile, I too, after much thought, bought a ticket for the game and, as an OAP, was rather surprised to have to pay £14 - a 40% increase from last year.  I wonder if this increase in prices put a few people off as well?  

How many people who would normally have come decided to stay away because of the current situation?  We can't know for sure but it can't be more than a couple of hundred at most.  In the total absence of any active protest, the club will spin the lower attendance as apathy and fans simply not supporting the club.

It is clear that the threat of withholding money from the club has not produced the desired result of the departure of the CEO, indeed, it appears that he may be trying to engineer a permanent role again under new investors.  That being the case,  I'm not sure there is much point in continuing to withhold money.  I certainly do not want to be contributing to the CEO's wages, but I do want to help ensure that the young lads starting out in the professional game and the hard working staff behind the scenes get paid.  That's my personal view in the current situation but I fully appreciate that others see things differently.

 

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

What about the 350 away support?

[Leaky Blinder]

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

 

It is clear that the threat of withholding money from the club has not produced the desired result of the departure of the CEO, indeed, it appears that he may be trying to engineer a permanent role again under new investors.  That being the case,  I'm not sure there is much point in continuing to withhold money.  I certainly do not want to be contributing to the CEO's wages, but I do want to help ensure that the young lads starting out in the professional game and the hard working staff behind the scenes get paid.  That's my personal view in the current situation but I fully appreciate that others see things differently.

 

The frustration is I want nothing more than to invest my hard earned cash into the club via a season ticket purchase, but to do so there has to be an acceptable level of genuine communication and transparency from the club to allow me to trust the governance process within the club going forward.

No business man would invest in the club until they have completed their due diligence to ensure their investment is protected so this is my personal baseline for financial commitment this season I'm afraid. As you correctly say others may see things differently and what is non negotiable for me may be inconsequential for someone else. 

 

Edited July 20, 2024 by Leaky Blinder
spelling mistook

[+DoofersDad]

1 hour ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

What about the 350 away support?

They must have boycotted the game!  About 20 or so in the South stand.

[bishbashbosh]

8 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

They must have boycotted the game!  About 20 or so in the South stand.

I thought 22.

Don’t think any Rose fans boycotted the game as only one person on the bridge and he was wearing an ICT top. 

[Leaky Blinder]

51 minutes ago, bishbashbosh said:

I thought 22.

Don’t think any Rose fans boycotted the game as only one person on the bridge and he was wearing an ICT top. 

Build it and they will come ...