ICT are staying up!! Well Done everyone.

[Howdenender]

Removing the pension age discount seems to me to be a very odd way of encouraging our older supporters to keep attending. And, for comparison, a pension age season ticket for the main stand at Ross County last season could be had for less than half the price ICT charged for the dubious pleasure of witnessing our League 1 struggles.

[STFU]

10 hours ago, Howdenender said:

Removing the pension age discount seems to me to be a very odd way of encouraging our older supporters to keep attending. And, for comparison, a pension age season ticket for the main stand at Ross County last season could be had for less than half the price ICT charged for the dubious pleasure of witnessing our League 1 struggles.

I agree but I do think the level of discount seems a bit high.

The idea of a loyalty discount system sounds good and might have stopped me breaking my continuity when swithering on renewal with all the bs last year.

[big cherly]

On 5/5/2025 at 11:30 AM, old caley girl said:

I think we have a really sizeable young loyal following. I was really annoyed when the 16-25 ST was withdrawn as this is the age group we need to encourage. 

Agree with your sentiments about 16-25 ST. In fact reading other posts I wasn’t aware Coonty offer dirt cheap season tickets for OAP, (Suppose Uncle Roy can absorb the costs). The point is not lost however in that this incentive will bring in more fans, (good chance OAP brings along nephew now and again); pie and bov income, more atmosphere (sweetie wrap rustling)…. You get my point. - I know there is a break even point for uncle Roy in this practice, however I hope AS is not too aloof to consider similar schemes. 
 

In regards Young team bouncing in the pub pre Montrose match; Yeah they’re the core team, but we have to look at increasing that tenfold in the Snecky pubs at home games. 

Look forward to hearing /seeing what the club come out with once we get out of Administration. 
bc

Edited May 7 by big cherly

[Charles Bannerman]

13 hours ago, big cherly said:

In fact reading other posts I wasn’t aware Coonty offer dirt cheap season tickets for OAP, (Suppose Uncle Roy can absorb the costs). 

I don’t think anyone at ICT is really in a position to make “Uncle Roy” observations, given the extent to which ICT has also burned through other people’s money over the years. Fair enough, Roy MacGregor has put vast amounts into County and in recent seasons that’s typically been over a million a year. But Caley Thistle, from the very start, hasn’t exactly been paying its own way either and since the club was founded, I’d estimate that it’s gone through a ballpark £15 million of money it hasn’t earned in order to get where it is just now - ie broke for the second time in its history and playing third tier football.

Once you add the £5 million Tullochs put in during the early 2000s to £3.3M of non- Tulloch share capital, the £4M of debt that’s about to be written off and the roughly £2M AS will have put in  (£800K purchase price plus admin costs plus coverage of current losses) and add other significant odds and ends chipped in as a matter of goodwill by various wellwishers, then you are pretty well at £15M. And that doesn’t include sources of public money such as £900K from the CGF and other substantial six figure contributions from the likes of the EU and the Football Trust.

However there are two main differences, apart from Roy having very likely put in a fair bit more even than what’s gone into Inverness. Firstly, County’s external subsidy is overwhelmingly from a single, known and (for as long as it lasts) reliable source while, especially latterly, Caley Thistle have had to engage in a constant scramble round various sympathetic wealthy individuals, never knowing what the outcome might be. And secondly “Uncle Roy” will doubtless be running a very well managed ship over there, whereas between around 2018 and last August when AS appeared, Caley Thistle was an ever deepening administrative shambles with expenditure totally out of control.

And therein lies what I believe will be Alan Savage’s greatest challenge - creating a business entity that can be sustainable in the long term, but in a sport where it’s accepted and normal practice for players to be consistently paid above their market value. As a result, clubs sail perilously close to the financial wind… so close in fact that it just needs an episode of incompetence such as ICT has just endured to bring the entire house of cards crashing down around everyone’s ears.

[+old caley girl]

23 hours ago, big cherly said:

 

In regards Young team bouncing in the pub pre Montrose match; Yeah they’re the core team, but we have to look at increasing that tenfold in the Snecky pubs at home games.

Can't see that happening ever tbh. For lots of reasons but a big one is that younger folk actually drink less than other generations. We didn't even have that in the glory days. 

 

[bdu98196]

8 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

creating a business entity that can be sustainable in the long term,

Biggest challenge with that is the structure of Scottish football and the inability to invest into longer term contracts aiming to develop and generate income through trading sales. With 10 team divisions where 4 top teams and 2 bottom teams end up in some kind of play-off at best clubs either short term invest to try go up all while avoiding lengthy commitments if they went down. Its typical of throughout the leagues why we see 1 or 2 year deals at best, this results in minimal transfer incomes if at all.

The media laud over Celtic and their trading model of buy cheap and sell for profits which is easy when guaranteed to be top (1 or2) and European football to balance the books. Other clubs cant operate that model (especially outside top 5 or 6 in the country) - while we can develop young talent and get compensation (often decided by tribunals and not the levels a trading sale would bring) the opportunity to keep young players on longer term on a better wage structure to increase profits is too high risk.

Looking at the contract lengths and then transfer business across the lower leagues its clear that sales are rare therefore limiting incomes to footfall and external avenues. Its absurd that a business needs to operate in a detrimental manner within a business sector to survive as they cannot rely on market stability to invest in core products that bring largest sales revenues.

[+DoofersDad]

There's a lot of money in football, but much of it ends up going out of football far too soon.  If you are on the National Living wage for your entire working life, you can expect to earn just over £1m in that time.  Top footballers earn more than that in less than a month.  It is absurd.  And over and above their salaries, they will be getting money from marketing deals. What on earth can anyone sensibly do with that kind of money?  I know they have to pay tax and there is always the risk of an early career ending injury, but on a year's salary they can buy and furnish a luxury house and invest the rest to be able live comfortably without having to kick a ball or do a day's work ever again.  Meanwhile, good players in the lower leagues are giving 100% week in, week out for minimum wages at clubs struggling to survive. It really is quite obscene.

I appreciate the value of market forces in an economy, but surely there needs to be some kind of wage cap and mechanism to distribute more money to support football at lower levels.  I know millions of people want to watch wonderful games like Tuesday's game between Inter Milan and Barcelona, but we need to remember that games like that would never happen if the foundations of the game at lower levels were not solid and able to attract young players into the game.

Of course, none of that helps the difficulties at Inverness just now, but it does serve to highlight what has been said above about the need for some financial stability in the club if we are ever to be competitive at the higher levels of Scottish football again.

[Scotty]

11 hours ago, bdu98196 said:

With 10 team divisions where 4 top teams and 2 bottom teams end up in some kind of play-off at best clubs either short term invest to try go up all while avoiding lengthy commitments if they went down. Its typical of throughout the leagues why we see 1 or 2 year deals at best, this results in minimal transfer incomes if at all.

Totally agree. And it seems we may be at it again in thinking of reducing the Premiership to 10 teams to try and make things easier for the twins in being able to meet European schedules. The idea being that 36 games is easier than the current 38 perhaps? or are they looking to drop it even lower? to perhaps around 30?   Reality is that football should be about all of the teams in the league not just the big two if you actually want anyone else to be remotely successful at home or abroad. 

3 leagues of 16 teams plus the pyramid below it is and always has been my personal favourite. With an added 4-6 teams in the Premiership, you don't get that instant 'fighting relegation' mentality that most teams have to adopt, and perhaps you increase revenue and performance because of that, and maybe even have the ability to develop youth. 

If we take the current league tables and apply it ignoring promotion/relegation for a second, you get something like this. 4 teams into the Prem that would not be out of place or have been there before, a decent championship, and of course a new name for the league below as no reconstruction is ever good without some new names thrown around. 

• Premiership: Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Dundee Utd, Hibs, Hearts, St Mirren, Motherwell, Kilmarnock, County, Dundee, St Johnstone + Falkirk, Livi, Ayr, Partick
• Championship: Raith, Morton, Dunfermline, Queens Park, Airdrieonians, Hamilton, + Arbroath, Cove, QOS, Stenny, Alloa, Kelty, ICT, Montrose, Annan, Dumbarton
• National League: Peterhead, East Fife, Edinburgh, Elgin, Spartans, Stirling A, Clyde, Stranraer, Forfar, Bonnyrig, + Brora, Brechin, Banks O Dee from HL and East Kilbride, Caledonian Braves & Tranent from lowland league. (no B' teams allowed into main structure). 
• Below that the pyramid continues to operate with a pathway to the main leagues for new and ambitious teams.
• Payment structure for league position must be fairer than the current system where teams finishing 1st and 2nd in Premiership take the lions share of all the sponsorship revenue. 

If the big two did want to reduce the number of games played, then why not play everyone just twice, once home and once away - that's 30 games and because you are not playing each other potentially 6 or 7 times a season between league and cups there is less opportunity for things to become stale. There is still the Scottish Cup and League Cup for everyone, and maybe for those teams not playing in Europe there could perhaps be an extra competition to make sure there are a few more games to make up for lost league games so they can generate some revenue. Perhaps a playoff system similar to MLS or based on Mexican Clausura or Apertura ... or, maybe just an expanded promotion and relegation playoff. I am sure better heads than mine could work it out. Regardless of the format, there has to be a way to give top end teams fewer domestic games (if that's their wish) while figuring out a way for other teams to be able to try and make ends meet with more games that will interest fans and generate some revenue. 

 

10 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

There's a lot of money in football, but much of it ends up going out of football far too soon.  If you are on the National Living wage for your entire working life, you can expect to earn just over £1m in that time.  Top footballers earn more than that in less than a month.  It is absurd.  And over and above their salaries, they will be getting money from marketing deals. What on earth can anyone sensibly do with that kind of money?  I know they have to pay tax and there is always the risk of an early career ending injury, but on a year's salary they can buy and furnish a luxury house and invest the rest to be able live comfortably without having to kick a ball or do a day's work ever again.  Meanwhile, good players in the lower leagues are giving 100% week in, week out for minimum wages at clubs struggling to survive. It really is quite obscene.

I appreciate the value of market forces in an economy, but surely there needs to be some kind of wage cap and mechanism to distribute more money to support football at lower levels.  I know millions of people want to watch wonderful games like Tuesday's game between Inter Milan and Barcelona, but we need to remember that games like that would never happen if the foundations of the game at lower levels were not solid and able to attract young players into the game.

You are right - wages are insane. @Charles Bannerman has been blowing that particular trumpet on here for years and he is not wrong. I remember the days where £5000 a week was seen as a really high wage for a footballer (rather than a normal person). Thats around £250K per year and now some players are picking that up a week! Maybe not in most teams (or workplaces) around Scotland, but the wage structure globally impacts every league in the world. 

I don't believe Salary caps are the answer although there is one aspect of this in MLS that might have a nugget of an idea that could be applied. But I say with almost 100% certainty guarantee the 'haves' would not vote for it as it involves giving more money to the 'have nots'.  

In MLS there is a salary cap - google it if you need it explained or look here: https://www.mlssoccer.com/about/roster-rules-and-regulations - but the short-ish summary is that teams have just a little less than USD$6m per year to use on salary. They can have up to 3 DPs (Designated Players) and each one of those DPs is charged to the cap at a little less than $750K regardless of their actual wage. Its all very complicated and there are various ways to 'adjust' things so you can have multiple high paid players and still remain under the cap. Thats why each team tends to have what they call a "capologist" scrutinising every potential signing. Miami of course have Messi on $20m a year (not to mention Busquets, Suarez and Alba) and Toronto have Insigne on $15m per year (as well as Bernardeschi on $6m) but that's what rich clubs can do. Only $750K of that wage is counted against the cap, the rest is ignored in terms of calculating the cap hit. However, what it does create in many teams is a disparity or imbalance between the abilities and wages in the squad.

MLSPA (Players association) publishes the player salary table twice per year : https://mlsplayers.org/resources/salary-guide  and it makes eye watering reading. For TFC in 2024 we had 3 (DP) players above $1m then another 8 above $500K [3 of whom are not worth that], another 4 between $250K and $500K [all but one who we got rid of at the end of last season] and after that everyone else is below USD$250K with 7 players making the league minimum of USD$71.4K which in Toronto or most big North American cities is not a living wage. For Miami it is the same, Messi and Busquets make almost $30m between them, then surprisingly Suarez and Alba make just $1.5m with another two players over $1m. Yet they have 13 players getting less than $100K per year which is 2 DAYS of Messi's salary.  (and that's before endorsements and apple TV royalties). 

The nugget that COULD be taken from the salary cap in MLS is one idea - which seems to have been omitted from recent documents so perhaps dropped as they adjusted the rules ahead of this season - is for teams who had 3 DPs to have to pay a 'tax' to the league for the privilege. Basically, teams were previously allowed 2DPs but when LA, NY, and Miami were squad building they pressured the league into allowing 3 DPs. Some teams like those mentioned as well as Toronto took advantage of this because they had the money.  However, other teams are not quite so rich and stuck with two. Due to this MLS devised a plan whereby any team signing a 3rd DP must pay an additional fee to the league that was then re-distributed to teams who did not have a 3rd DP. That money was then added to their cap to allow them to sign better mid-level players under the cap. LA, NY, Miami and Toronto got nothing from this fund, but teams like Colorado or Salt Lake City got a share of this pot over and above other money from the league. Like I said though - can't see the wealthier clubs in Scotland agreeing to something like that if we agreed a similar payment that allowed them to go above the wage cap for a certain number of players, or for overall salary in the squad. They will no doubt argue that the Financial Fair Play rules already oversee this but that does nothing to help out the less wealthy teams, quite the opposite in fact. 

[big cherly]

20 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I don’t think anyone at ICT is really in a position to make “Uncle Roy” observations,

I understand the point you make Charles regarding Coonty-UncRoy and players wages. It seems unfair and skewed on ‘normal’ smaller clubs operating on modest means. The fact is however these exist and I can’t see the powers to be changing them to divert more revenue generated towards a more balance spread in lower league clubs. (Rangers - Celtic - Sugar daddies). 
I am pleased however that some posters are beginning to bring or open the discussion / topic of how the club /ST can think differently and running the club profitably - looking to increase the support base. 
So my line about not ignoring what the Coonty-UncRoy isn’t a hit at AS or the club (oors), it’s about being open minded!! Being positive, we are eventually out of Admin, I consider it is an opportunity (with less baggage) to look openly and innovatively at new ideas as well as the standard income models. 
Attracting more fans is a key one for me (short and long term). No easy solution but we avoid this task at our peril. I know it was done in the past and more recently (I think) at the end of this seasons games, so allowing one or two local primary school class kids in for nothing seems a no brainer. (sure someone has good reasons why this doesn’t work?). 
Better to put up an idea to be shot down than keep shtum and do nothing.

More please.
 
Tuppenceworth. 
bc 

Edited May 8 by big cherly

[+CaleyD]

Too many professional teams in Scotland for the size of it.

In England there's about 600,000 people for every pro team. In Scotland it's only about 130,000.

That's one of the main reason the game here will never attract sufficient investment/sponsorship/fan numbers to make any real inroads into the financial situation.

[big cherly]

10 minutes ago, CaleyD said:

Too many professional teams in Scotland for the size of it.

In England there's about 600,000 people for every pro team. In Scotland it's only about 130,000.

That's one of the main reason the game here will never attract sufficient investment/sponsorship/fan numbers to make any real inroads into the financial situation.

Yep, and with Coonty and ICT geographically fighting for a relatively fixed number of football fans, the task is even tougher. So do we just accept our lot and do ZIP. 
bc 

[+CaleyD]

Not saying to do nothing, but every time this conversation comes around we get the same list of suggestions, finger pointing at previous regimes, or crying about league setup and lack of money feeding down the way.

I was merely highlighting why it is the way it is.

ICTFC, and other clubs, have to operate within the confines of a bloated setup, being run by people stuck in the past, with no desire to make any radical changes.

Always do what you've always done...etc.

[bishbashbosh]

This popped up 5 hours ago.

apologies if posted already. Worth a view if anyone fancies it.

[bdu98196]

Agreement on the bloated set up and too many clubs, but forcing clubs to merge when they have community focus is detrimental to those areas whether it serves a few hundred or tens of thousands. There is and always has been an issue and while an Angus FC (Brechin, Forfar, Montrose, Arbroath) on paper brings together 4 clubs who reside at the lower levels permanently, on paper it could be seen as 4 into 1 brings enough fanbase and revenue to be a stable Championship level club but as we all know merged clubs have issues, lose fans and politics rip it apart for years therefore is it worthwhile overall and will it work to solve anything?

A bigger point is the size of the league structures - 42 is too many and now we have the lower access route we are seeing teams like Kelty, Cove and now EK (could have been Brora) either getting or fighting to join - what do they bring overall should be the question? Minimal fanbases, sugar daddy spending where the ceiling will ultimately be League 1 and is there really much community engagement (not in the Cove case anyways).

The danger of creating an elitist structure is the whole scenario becomes a closed shop, however without that there is the heavy dilution of limited funds which is keeping clubs either afloat (just) or they live one death, financial issue, benefactor loss from going belly up. Not saying the L1 and L2 clubs dont have a place but if you cant get more than a few hundred fans through your gates for home games then perhaps its better to be in a regional league set up. And thats where the restructure needs to be 2 top leagues of 16 with a significant restructure below to bring HL/LL/juniors etc all together into 3 or 4 regional set ups with play-offs/finals resulting in with a 2 up/down into the top tier set up. Keep it simple, keep costs and travel local and allow opportunity for teams to have breathing space to develop talent.

 

[+snorbens_caleyman]

12 hours ago, big cherly said:

Being positive, we are eventually out of Admin

Not as far as I am aware.  The unsecured creditors still have to agree to whatever is offered them - which may be nothing.

Wasn't 22nd May set as a date for bringing things to a conclusion?

[Charles Bannerman]

18 hours ago, CaleyD said:

Too many professional teams in Scotland for the size of it.

In England there's about 600,000 people for every pro team. In Scotland it's only about 130,000.

That's one of the main reason the game here will never attract sufficient investment/sponsorship/fan numbers to make any real inroads into the financial situation.

Wages are like a millstone round clubs’ necks and, as you say, there are more millstones per head in Scotland, irrespective of how you define “professional” clubs, because payment goes a long way below Tier 4/ League Two. There’s absolutely silly money sloshing around in the Highland League, for instance, because Scottish football - or football in general - has established a business model that involves guaranteed payment at very low levels of performance. Much as we know and love it, the Highland League isn’t rocket science sport, and training twice a week is pretty well minimalist… but still there are a lot of bucks to be gained.

Football pays participants way, way above any other sport I know of in this country and while football also has a lot more money than any other sport, at just about every imaginable level it pays so much that clubs are continually on the verge of insolvency. However, now that these payment practices have been established, they have created a mindset and an expectation among players, so I just don’t see how this millstone can be cast from the game’s neck.

In 40 years of covering a wide range of sports (Boring Old Fart alert!) and direct involvement to quite a high level in one of them, I have found that football’s values, practices, expectations etc are quite distinct from everything else that’s going.

[big cherly]

34 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Wages are like a millstone round clubs’ necks and, as you say, there are more millstones per head in Scotland, irrespective of how you define “professional” clubs,

It’s a market value industry. Put aside we have too many (mickey mouse) clubs in the Scottish top leagues with hardly enough fans to pay for a match ball, how much do you consider a professional full time footballer in league 1 should be paid. (Minimum wage; lower)? 

Serious question.

bc

[+CaleyD]

If it was a market value industry we wouldn't have huge amounts of money being poured into clubs by wealthy owners/directors/fans up and down the country every season.

Those managing to break even, or even make anything are in a very small minority.

Anyway, all of that is outwith ICTFCs control.  We can argue the rights and wrongs of it all we want, but we have to find a way to function, and balance the books, within the system that exists.

[big cherly]

19 hours ago, CaleyD said:

wealthy owners/directors/fans

Simple supply and demand. The demand is and remains the wealthy owners/directors/fans that cannot be weaned off of their ‘kick’ of trying to sustain their club operations on breadline margins.

The fact that many, (bulk) of the clubs in Scotland teeter on the edge of survival year in year out on what you rightly say is insufficient fans (the prime factor) continues to surprise and bewilder me. 
Two clubs (from black and white telly days) Third Lanark and Clydebank have faded into the amateur and junior leagues. Others in the past years through relegation - Berwick, East Stirlingshire, Brechin, Albion Rovers, Cowdenbeath and Gretna are examples and casualties of dwindling resources. The harsh reality is few, if any of these clubs will ever see a return to Division 4 because they have next to no fans and hence can’t realistically run a viable football operation. 
So back to supply and demand. As long as wealthy owners / directors (for whatever reason), aka Uncle-Roy, Morrison etc retain the desire to plough money into keeping and watching ‘their’ football teams playing the demand will exist. Despite endless past cases in Scotland where it ultimately comes crashing down leaving those clubs in desperate danger of survival.

‘Cut the cloth to …. ‘ 

bc 
 

Edited May 10 by big cherly

[Charles Bannerman]

23 hours ago, big cherly said:

It’s a market value industry. Put aside we have too many (mickey mouse) clubs in the Scottish top leagues with hardly enough fans to pay for a match ball, how much do you consider a professional full time footballer in league 1 should be paid. (Minimum wage; lower)? 

Serious question.

bc

To be realistic, League One is quite far down the pecking order for there to be any full time wages at all. Football tends to live in something of a bubble in that there seems to be this expectation of payment down to a very low level. This is way out of step with just about every other sport and, while football also has more money than most other sports, much of this excessive payment is made possible by subsidy of clubs by wealthy individuals. This really is quite a false situation, and is the root cause of so many clubs hanging in on the edge of the financial precipice.

[+CaleyD]

Just looking at some stats, and whilst not wanting to reopen the fruit debate, I noticed that Alfie Bavidge managed to surpass Iain Stewart as the clubs most prolific goal scorer.

Iain Stewart - 0.59 GtGR

Alfie Bavdige - 0.60 GtGR

Lots of caveats can be attached to that, and I'm sure someone will be along to do so, so I'll not deny them the pleasure by listing them myself

[big cherly]

1 hour ago, CaleyD said:

Just looking at some stats, and whilst not wanting to reopen the fruit debate, I noticed that Alfie Bavidge managed to surpass Iain Stewart as the clubs most prolific goal scorer.

Iain Stewart - 0.59 GtGR

Alfie Bavdige - 0.60 GtGR

Lots of caveats can be attached to that, and I'm sure someone will be along to do so, so I'll not deny them the pleasure by listing them myself

Bavdige’s dad was a rotten speller!!

Edited May 13 by big cherly

[Kind of Blue]

5 hours ago, CaleyD said:

Just looking at some stats, and whilst not wanting to reopen the fruit debate, I noticed that Alfie Bavidge managed to surpass Iain Stewart as the clubs most prolific goal scorer.

Iain Stewart - 0.59 GtGR

Alfie Bavdige - 0.60 GtGR

Lots of caveats can be attached to that, and I'm sure someone will be along to do so, so I'll not deny them the pleasure by listing them myself

I would be interested to see Keith Bray’s goal to game ratio

[Charles Bannerman]

6 hours ago, CaleyD said:

Just looking at some stats, and whilst not wanting to reopen the fruit debate, I noticed that Alfie Bavidge managed to surpass Iain Stewart as the clubs most prolific goal scorer.

Iain Stewart - 0.59 GtGR

Alfie Bavdige - 0.60 GtGR

Lots of caveats can be attached to that, and I'm sure someone will be along to do so, so I'll not deny them the pleasure by listing them myself

On a similar basis, is or was Graeme Bennett not the most successful manager of all time at one point in the strength of a caretakership?

[+CaleyD]

1 hour ago, Kind of Blue said:

I would be interested to see Keith Bray’s goal to game ratio

0.30

All the info is at ...

https://stats.caleythistleonline.com/players.php