St Mirren will win the league.

Dundee United look like being second. 

It is between the next five teams for being 3rd and 4th. All of which can beat each other on the day.

St Mirren beating Dunfermline last night is a good result then. 

A lot to play for every week, plus also a lot to lose. 

Can't decide if I want a bit of a Scottish Cup run. Dundee, and if it happens, Motherwell, are both winnable matches. To me the priority is the league and promotion. 

At least these can take our mind off the Irn Bru cup fiasco.

 

Edited January 27, 20188 yr by Guest

I doubt that we train three hours a week but at the same time there is a big danger in over-training.  I was reading an article about the new Leeds manager, Paul Heckingbottom.  As part of his team he has performance analysts who try to tailor training sessions to the players levels - you can't play for 40+ games at your best level if you just train the same all the time and don't manage your recovery.  Barnsley, where Heckingbottom had success, came from miles behind to get promoted from League One a few years back with a late season push.

Here's the article actually - http://www.trainingground.guru/articles/why-nathan-winder-will-be-key-at-leeds-united

Who cares about any other sports, how they train and what they are paid? How is that relevant to Inverness Caledonian Thistle performing in the championship. 

1 hour ago, Stirling Observer said:

Who cares about any other sports, how they train and what they are paid? How is that relevant to Inverness Caledonian Thistle performing in the championship. 

Unfortimately it's that kind of insular attitude which has contributed to landing football in the state it's in - a general state of paying players far too much, often for not doing a geeat deal, which in turn is one root cause of ICT's current specific predicament.

Has it not occurred to posters who have been calling for a "sugar daddy" for ICT,  just how bizarre it is that there should be some kind of institutionalised expectation that wealthy people should subsidise businesses which are loss making because they pay employees way above their market  value? Football shouldn't assume that it is owed a living by rich people simply to keep turnstile prices down. And yes, 5:15 on a Sunday is a daft KO time, but it's simply a consequence of inflated wages creating pressure to do TV deals.

If football would only wake up and sniff the coffee, it might actually learn something from the other sports which organise their affairs in a far more sustainable manner.

Edited February 16, 20188 yr by Charles Bannerman

20 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Has it not occurred to posters who have been calling for a "sugar daddy" for ICT,  just how bizarre it is that there should be some kind of institutionalised expectation that wealthy people should subsidise businesses which are loss making

Don't think it's an expectation - just a forlorn hope!

I can think of 3 Scottish teams - Livingston, Gretna and Ross County who didn't do too badly because they were heavily subsidised by wealthy people who were passionate about their local team. It is the tribal nature of football supporters which can lead them to pay well over the odds for a mediocre "product".

Just now, buckett said:

Don't think it's an expectation - just a forlorn hope!

I can think of 3 Scottish teams - Livingston, Gretna and Ross County who didn't do too badly because they were heavily subsidised by wealthy people who were passionate about their local team. 

Livingston went into administration a few years later.  Gretna went bust!

20 minutes ago, Renegade said:

Livingston went into administration a few years later.  Gretna went bust!

Ross County had Save Our Staggies.

Admittedly once the input from the "sugar-daddy" is removed there is a sharp return to reality!

Presumably there is a bottom to Uncle Roy's pit.

8 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

However there are people in other sports who train 6 or 7 days a week alongside their day jobs, using their wages there to cover their training and competition costs.

Serves them right for being shyte at fitba if you ask me.

4 hours ago, TheMantis said:

Serves them right for being shyte at fitba if you ask me.

The bigger concern is people who are shyte at fitba getting big money for being shyte at fitba. (qv, among others, ICTFC in recent years.)

And then there are all these sets of Emperor's New Clothes which Scottish football in particular continues to acquire.

Edited February 16, 20188 yr by Charles Bannerman

What a load of nonsense. We are in the championship because we overpay players compared to other sports?

I have never wanted a so called sugar daddy, always preferred the community club approach. 

Imagine what league we would be in if we said 'well the Highland rugby club only pay a tracksuit and a free bar at the end of the year, so that's what will we offer you to play for us'. Think until Hughes was in charge and the exception of Marius have we overpaid players for their worth in the current market. Hence why the talented players move on to bigger wages elsewhere.

1 hour ago, Stirling Observer said:

What a load of nonsense. We are in the championship because we overpay players compared to other sports?

Not quite. Football generally pays its players above, sometimes well above, their market value - hence creating, among other things, the need to bankroll that through TV deals with arrangements like 5:15 Sunday kick-offs. One of the main reasons Caley Thistle is on an unsound financial footing is that it latterly paid its players even further above that market value (ie compared, relatively, with the rest of football) in a failed attempt to remain in the Premiership.

10 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The bigger concern is people who are shyte at fitba getting big money for being shyte at fitba. (qv, among others, ICTFC in recent years.)

And then there are all these sets of Emperor's New Clothes which Scottish football in particular continues to acquire.

37 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Not quite. Football generally pays its players above, sometimes well above, their market value - hence creating, among other things, the need to bankroll that through TV deals with arrangements like 5:15 Sunday kick-offs. 

If players are being paid “generally” at a certain level, that is their market value. TV deals with different kick off arrangements aren’t evidence that players are paid above their market value. TV deals are one component of what gives footballers their market value.

Edited February 17, 20188 yr by ictchris

If we can't afford to sustain the club on the current tv deal and gate receipts then of course the players are being paid above the market value.  I would much rather have the standard drop in football in Scotland than pay over the odds for players to try and compete. 

2 hours ago, ictchris said:

If players are being paid “generally” at a certain level, that is their market value. TV deals with different kick off arrangements aren’t evidence that players are paid above their market value. TV deals are one component of what gives footballers their market value.

I'm not sure about that. Wages are being artificially inflated above levels which, in a normal business environment or market, would be determined by the income coming into the sport. Clubs persist with this regime of over payment through living outwith their means, by carrying unrealistic liabilities, and by depending on the said "sugar daddies" - who can be as easily gone tomorrow as they are here today. Also contributing to this process is the sport as a whole straining every last sinew of the cash raising process by agreeing to TV deals which have significant down sides which include bizarre kick off times.

I would also suggest that any argument that suggests that the current TV deals are part of a genuine market value, then there is no case whatsoever for fans to complain about the truly nonsensical kick off times which are being imposed on them by these deals.

Edited February 17, 20188 yr by Charles Bannerman

35 minutes ago, ICTPAISLEY said:

If we can't afford to sustain the club on the current tv deal and gate receipts then of course the players are being paid above the market value.  I would much rather have the standard drop in football in Scotland than pay over the odds for players to try and compete. 

So would I, and this applies not only to ICT but to a large number of clubs. There is also an interesting potential debate here in sporting psychology and ethics (or possibly ethos) about the extent to which, in football, cash overrides other influences in providing a source of motivation to train and perform.

Then, when you wonder how much the players involved in the alleged drunken incident at their Spanish training camp actually get paid, you really do have to ask if the p**s is getting taken rather too often?

I think that ictchris and Charles are both right in a way. Players are being paid their market value, but that market is over-inflated. In short, it's a classic bubble. However, despite many predictions over the years, the bubble as a whole shows no sign of bursting. Individual clubs come and go, according to their financial circumstances, and the difference between the richest and the less rich clubs has increased. But the bubble as a whole remains intact, as record transfer fees and wages show.

1 hour ago, ICTPAISLEY said:

If we can't afford to sustain the club on the current tv deal and gate receipts then of course the players are being paid above the market value.  I would much rather have the standard drop in football in Scotland than pay over the odds for players to try and compete. 

There is a difference between market value and what we can currently afford due to mismanagement for the last three years.

So, in summary, .....what?                Play them or sack them?   

Money talks. And what some of the wages are nowadays just stuns me. It's not a muted tune it's a whopping crescendo. Many experienced  Ice hockey players in America and Canada get $6,000,000 contracts per year for goodness sake.  Absolutely Insane.

All this talk about "it's a short career" is baloney. Everyone who is employed by someone else may have an even shorter career depending on a multitude of factors and events in their life. Footballers who train well may have a very fine physical body when their footie days are over and may well have prepared themselves by home study, or whatever else turns them on, to enter another non-physical field of employment.

Think about this small thing -- when they are on the park on match day  but not actually on the ball,  then  what exactly are they contributing? Just the fact that they are filling a position and might just touch the ball a few times as the game progresses? Sounds bizarre, but factual. Yet, a  painter's assistant  still lifts his paint brush repetitively on the job and doesn't wait for the boss to bring his paint pot over to the wall he is working on and tell him for the umpteenth time to pick his brush up , does he? 

And maybe too simple for the average fan to embrace because what they really go to the match for is the opportunity to get with the tribe of males and away from the hum-drum home environment, together with the potential to get a thrill when the team scores or they see a very silky move by a player that stimulates their emotions like no other. Man, this is primeval stuff and not really about football at all. It's  just the thrill of an afternoon out and the opportunity to possibly get other thrills that their daily life just doesn't give  them. And the actors on the stage in this scenario are paid accordingly. 

It's your own choice as to whether you feel the potential rush is worth it enough for you to  fork out your money on a Saturday or not. And for the players, the actors on the footie stage of life, it's supply and demand. Both categories are going to be difficult to change for you, them and the football bosses so we can either quit altogether and watch the T.V. or get our raincoats and scarves on and set-off for Tulloch Stadium  to shiver in the Winter cold. 

Back to the football in this topic please. 

Tomorrow night, Dumbarton v Morton. Come on Dumbarton. 3 points please. 

Saturday. Us v Morton. In the words of Foran - "its a must win game" 

Saturday also sees QOS v Dunfermline. Its a must draw game!! 

Win for Morton 0-1. We are now 8 points behind Morton in fourth place although we have a game in hand. 

Pretty much a must win game if we want to get into a play-off slot.

We have only nine games left to save our season.

Think we will need win 2/3rds of them to achieve a playoff position. Realistically I don't see us getting promoted via the playoffs but it would be a good boost for the bank balance and add a bit of excitement. Sets us up nicely for a proper attack next season.

1 minute ago, Stirling Observer said:

Think we will need win 2/3rds of them to achieve a playoff position. Realistically I don't see us getting promoted via the playoffs but it would be a good boost for the bank balance and add a bit of excitement. Sets us up nicely for a proper attack next season.

Further financial austerity measures may not make this so easy. 

Imagine us with no Iain Vigurs, Liam Polworth, Aaron Doran, Brad Mckay, Connor Bell, George Oakley etc. We could be back to where we were last summer. 

Couple that with whoever is relegated, possibly two teams from Premiership, with windfall payments etc.

Next season could likely be a scrap to retain a full time squad as opposed to a promotion push.

Hope not, but think so. 

Lose tomorrow and we're up s##t creek league wise I would say. 

That would leave us with just the Ice Cream Soda cup final to look forward to.