Scotty

to answer the OP - no ! rather spend the cash on the squad

MLS starts up in March, that much of your post is correct, but most teams started training last week and on the first day of training he parted ways with Vancouver by mutual consent ..... he is no longer a player in MLS and is now a free agent.

Not going to happen. Wouldn't suit our style of play and we can't afford his wages anyway. Its more likely he will be looking at playing for a Championship or top half League 1 side. Rumoured to be going to Panathanaikos ... although there seems to be a paperwork issue with his release from MLS. Portland parted ways with him on 17th January (bought out his contract) but all players are signed to MLS not to individual clubs and there seems to be some "issue" in finalising his outright release ..... but as a free agent he could sign for someone outside the window I think?

Think I may also have worded my response differently to what I meant ... I should perhaps have said "legitimacy" instead of "identity" although both fit and are equally valid .... Dont think anyone would really look for additional perks as such. As you say, the members are all individuals so whether they are a part of any club/group is irrelevant as everyone is a member of CJT and has the same benefits. Whats in it for any "group"? The legitimacy of being able to say their club/group was a "a member of CJT", "part of CJT", "affiliated to CJT" or whatever wording was appropriate in the eyes of CJT. A sense of identity and a feeling their group belongs to something bigger that is the #togetherNESS of being an ICT supporter ! Whats in it for CJT? Potentially (a few) more members as the Scottish, UK, and worldwide diaspora may feel more connected to the club and obviously everyone in any supporters group aligned with CJT would have to be an individual member of the main body ..... Whats in it for ICT? Financially, probably nothing, but maybe the opportunity to market the club as having organised supporters groups throughout the UK and worldwide.

I would rather we held onto current squad than hear of any signings. If we sign someone who isn't a loan or a player under the age of 21 then its usually a pre-cursor to the news that someone has left .....

Other than perhaps feeling they can be a part of something, even 'loosely' .... I know they can easily get that simply by joining CJT and price is certainly no barrier, but as we have found over the years having an identity means something, especially when you do not live in Inverness ..... look at the "Internutters" or the Highland Marchers .....

So me and Luvgravy can setup the Toronto branch too seriously though ... it was something I remember bringing up way back when I was on the committee of the Supporters Club many moons ago ... the idea of having 'affiliated' supporters clubs that were attached to the official supporters club and could feel like they had an identity within the supporters culture.... It didnt really fly back then, but given the low cost of individual CJT membership then maybe its something CJT should consider and potential members would embrace ......

PLEASE NOTE: As this is a weekday game, normal site updates such as team lines, POY poll, league tables etc., may not be online till later.

THE MATCHDAY THREAD Discuss ICT & other games in this thread as they happen St Mirren -V- Inverness CT PREVIEW 30th Jan @ 7:45PM, St Mirren Park, Paisley Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Go to the Chatroom Media Coverage AUDIO BBC Sportsound Open All Mics [UK Only] Moray Firth Radio Live commentary [UK Only] TEXT ESPN BBC SKY Sporting Life VIDEO SPL YouTube Channel ICT Official YouTube Channel TEAM LINEUPS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuqry9SMjQM

The fault is definitely north of the border as far as I am concerned ..... The International Transfer certificate, amongst other contract and eligibility related stuff, confirms that he is not currently serving a ban, or due to serve one from the English FA that would be applicable internationally ... ie. there is no impending ban in England. It has sweet (S)FA to do with any disciplinary issues in Scotland. The ITC should be consolidated with any paperwork that was in existence when he left Scotland to give a full picture ... ie. no ban from England, but an outstanding League cup ban from Scotland, ergo, a one match ban to be served. Putting the conspiracy hat on, I suggest Hearts knew he was banned, possibly because the player asked, and they asked the question, but after getting the all-clear from an inept bureaucrat (are there any other types in the offices in Glasgow?) decided to play him anyway ..... a risk they decided to take ..... and a consequence now up in the air unless there is a truthful explanation of why he was allowed to play

Because the suspension was specific to the Scottish League Cup I undrestand that. The point I am making is that if the people are saying the suspension may have been in the first game of the following season when he was at Liverpool when he played games in Scotland after the final so the ban was for the Scottish League Cup only Ahh, understand you now .... its all getting as confusing as a cake run in Mount Florida ! Who asked for Jam Tarts? Will Jam(my) (ban) Dodgers do instead?

Because the suspension was specific to the Scottish League Cup ... The SPL and SFA Cup are not that competition as you yourself point out in the last sentence. That's why i posted my 1 single question above .... WHEN was this ban served ? If it was served in the Scottish Cup or SPL then tell us ... If it was served in England then tell us. In both cases, it doesnt sound like it is possible as it was a ban in a specific competition not a 'next game' ban that crosses competitions (or organisations)

Euan Norris had a shocker by all accounts and lets be thankful he didnt send Foran packing as well ..... sounds like we could have had little complaint about that.

Bridge over the river Kwai and Dracula's castle ?

I think #1 is wrong unless it is a straight red card for violent conduct meaning the player is suspended immediately for the next game in any competition. In that scenario, I believe it may be enforceable worldwide for the next FIFA sanctioned game the player takes part in so basically any game in any organised league (including welfare/amateur). Going by the documentation already shown in this thread, this was not the case as it clearly states he would be suspended for his next fixture in the Scottish League Cup, not the Scottish League, nor the SFA Cup, nor by extension the English League or any cups in England. As far as I can remember (from my days with the Amateur League), that suspension is enforceable on his return even if the player moves away for a decade or more .... Bottom line is that Its an administrative cockup at some level and ultimately, whether deserved or not, the blame on this lies with Hearts as the rules state the club is responsible. It doesnt matter who the actual numbnuts that failed to realise the issue was, and whether they were employed by Hearts or the SFA, and I actually sympathise a little with Hearts here as it sounds like they tried to check things out ... but based on this error, they fielded an ineligble player who may or may not have had a direct bearing on the result. If we had been hammered, then I would say let it slide, the better team won on the day, but with a game that went to ET then penalties, even though he did not take one, its a very tough call and my ICT bias says we need a little bit more than a perfunctory brush-off. Club may be a little hog-tied on what they can say, in public at least, and I hope they are doing the proverbial duck and looking calm on top but pedalling like **** underneath !!!! but either way please, CJT, get your teeth into this one ! We may not get a replay out of it, and we may not deserve one, but we do at the very least deserve an explanation ......

I understand the club have to be diplomatic in their verbage .... but we do not ... Someone is LYING through their teeth and arses are being well and truly covered. so I have as simple question WHEN was this ban served ? The answer to this, and the chance to verify it will put this to bed, anything else will not.

that was the reason they gave, strange it wasnt the keeper being picked to not take one, the keepers are busy enough on pens to not have to worry about scoring one too Ahh, but they worded it as Raven "not being able to take part" not him not being able to take a kick ... if we named Reguero, could he still have "taken part" in goals .....

No real reason given other than saying it was because it was 10-v-10 when it came to pens, so assume ICT had to nominate someone to sit out as well as the 5 pen takers.

Reguero booked at the start of pens ?????

and so it is penalties ... to be taken at the ICT supporters end

I keep waiting for BBC to do the same with audio ..... they do it every week when online OAM streams end promptly at 5pm and you cant get the normal BBC feed back for another 5 minutes after that .... usually about the same time as TB is interviewed !!!!

even Allan Preston agreed

Ngoo equalises