Scotty

In the eyes of the SPL, the team that sells tickets to a group of fans can be held responsible for any bad behaviour from those fans when it comes to dishing out sanctions, fines or anything else. Until that changes, most clubs will accept the levy as its not worth the potential hassle to do anything else.

In the eyes of the SPL, the team that sells tickets to a group of fans can be held responsible for any bad behaviour from those fans when it comes to sanctions, fines or anything else. Until that changes, most clubs will accept the levy as its not worth the potential hassle to do anything else.

we accepted the levy. Several questions were asked about this for next month's Boardroom Banter but I know that one of the major reasons behind it was the fact that if we sold them we would be responsible for the behaviour of their fans.

Roy McBain is an enigma, much like Russell Duncan. There are those who watch him in a game and see nothing positive, and yet there are just as many who watch him in the same game and see a good performance or at worst no major problem. Personally - and for the umpteenth time this month - I find myself agreeing with IHE again. When Roy is good, he is very good, and he is usually very good when played in a position befitting his skillset. He is not so good when played outside that comfort zone .... but you could say that about most players. Admittedly I havent seen much of him recently but the only other contribution I can really add to this discussion is that I always felt he looked nervous or lacking in confidence once he crossed the halfway line. He would turn back or look for the lateral pass instead of using his skills to skin someone or have a go. On the occasions when he did skin someone he has looked good and scored goals, but when playing sideways or backwards, he could be very frustrating. All of this, I would say, backs up IHE's contention that a defensive midfield or left back or wing-back role would suit him ... especially if the manager tells him he has confidence in him !

ok. this thread is once again getting dragged off-topic and as stated in the first post ...... The (original) topic was closed for two reasons. 1. The person(s) who the story was about stated that it was false and they did not wish to comment on it further. 2. It is our understanding that there is now an investigation underway into the events of Saturday and we have to tread carefully in case it goes further. It is fine to discuss SPL rules and their interpretations, misinterpretations or areas where they are open to different interpretations, but we are asking users to steer clear of going into further detail regarding this specific incident until further notice.

People can petition all they like but the bottom line is that clubs will continue to capitulate to this ludicrous levy until such time as the rules on how many tickets you are forced to allocate to your opponents is changed. Right now, clubs must supply their opposition with a minimum number of tickets equivalent to 5% of their total ground capacity. They cannot unilaterally say that they are not getting any !!! If clubs decided to sell OF tickets themselves to avoid the levy, the kicker is that the home club is then responsible for the behaviour of the away fans as they allocated the tickets to them. Most clubs baulk at this idea !!!! If the 5% rule was changed, there might be a few more clubs who would stand up and say .... "5% levy, nahh, dont worry about it, we will sell the tickets to our own fans".

how come Morton can arrange a closed door friendly and we cant? Especially with our reserve game being cancelled this week, a closed door friendly would give our reservs/U19s/fringe players a run out and would also allow our own coaching staff to assess him. Not rocket science! Tend to agree .... whats to stop ICT being the big team in this and organising an evening closed door friendly against the likes of an HFL team or Inverness City or someone like that .... its maybe not as "competitive" as an SFL V SPL matchup, but I would imagine it would be competitive enough to assess a trialist or try out a few ideas for set pieces or positional tactics etc.

The topic was closed for two reasons. 1. The person(s) who the story was about stated that it was false and they did not wish to comment on it further. 2. It is our understanding that there is now an investigation underway into the events of Saturday and we have to tread carefully in case it goes further. It is fine to discuss SPL rules and their interpretations, misinterpretations or areas where they are open to different interpretations, but we are asking users to steer clear of going into further detail regarding this specific incident until further notice.

And I think that this juncture probably IS a good place to draw a line under this thread.

I don't believe so. The first post says that "According to todays edition ICT have given a life-time ban to a supporter for the BJK banner". This has been followed up by a link to the relevant website that shows that comment in print. whether the facts are accurate is yet to be seen, but it is a discussion about something already in print in one of the papers. Sorry, cant see where anyone has said that. If you are inferring I said it by mentioning "As I said above, I accept that the lads were trying to be humorous" then please re-read my previous post and the rest of that post. I think I have made it quite clear that this is not my viewpoint.

Our home match against Motherwell is being filmed by a six camera shoot and the full re-run of the game will be shown on BBC Alba (Sky channel 168) on Saturday evening at 7.30pm.

As I said above, I accept that the lads were trying to be humorous. It DID NOT work. Perhaps the sectarian singing that followed the displaying of the banner made it more of an issue than it would have been had they behaved but when you add the two together, it was bang out of order. For the first time in my life, I was embarrassed to be an ICT supporter, especially later in the day when I spoke with Rangers, Celtic and Hearts fans at the Toronto FC game.

You just dont get it do you. The banner may have been humorous to those who made it, but to most it was offensive (not sectarian, but offensive nonetheless). You can argue the "we won 3-2" part of that till you are blue in the face, it will get you nowhere. The simple fact of the matter is that all anyone focussed on was the first part of the banner and I would suggest you are well aware of how insulting Cetic fans would find this, otherwise you wouldnt have produced it. The man died 23 years ago (while working for our country's national football team) so its not likely he's got a Setanta subscription or gets text alerts from our resident Ghostbuster !!! The excuse that Rangers sing something or Hearts do something just doesnt wash. Just because other teams' supporters do something doesnt make it right and doesnt give our fans carte blanche to join in with it. How those clubs deal with it is up to them (or UEFA if they do nothing). What we are talking about here is ICT and how they deal with it if it is seen as an issue. I have no inside track on this, or what they might choose to do. I am just speaking as a supporter and my gut feeling is that the level of consequence for you guys will be directly related to the amount of grief the club get either from a body such as the police, or from football authorities such as the SPL. If the club do choose to do anything about it you have given them a huge scope of sanctions they can actually make that choice from....... In reading the club and SPL rules (even if I dont necessarily agree with everything contained within them) it is VERY EASY to make the accusation of "Disorderly Conduct" in relation to the banner, especially points 2 and 3 of the SPL rules. 2) using threatening, abusive or insulting words or conduct. 3) displaying or writing anything which is threatening, abusive or insulting. The club's stated sanction for these...... "Any supporter who engages in unacceptable conduct will be liable for sanctions imposed by the Club which may involve ejection from the Stadium, withdrawal of season ticket and/or exclusion from future matches involving the Club". As for the sectarian chanting, the SPL (and club) ground regulations quite simply state the following 11) The use of threatening behaviour, foul or abusive language is strictly forbidden. Racial, Sectarian, homophobic or discriminatory abuse or chanting is also forbidden and is considered as unacceptable conduct and may result in arrest and a lifetime ban from regulated football matches. And that is ALL football matches, not just ICT ones.

I have a feeling that any action taken will depend on what, if any, sanctions are taken against the club by the SPL.

I think Hastings deserves a bit of slack .... He has played two international games in a week, one in Honduras and one in Edmonton and still got his arse back to Inverness for Saturday. If anything, perhaps Brewster should have put him on the bench as I very much doubt he had fully recovered from his travels. Proctor -- yes, "all the time" !!! Canada and other N American & Caribbean nations play a heap of qualifiers to decide which of the 35 nations get the 3.5 qualifying spots ..... Canada will not progress to the 4th round of qualifiers, but if they had, would have played a total of 20 games to qualify. Even in not qualifying,they will have played a total of 8 games in just over 4 months.

I wouldnt doubt his fitness would be OK, but wonder how his shoulder would hold up .... isnt it supposed to be basically knackered ?

I am with IHE on this one ..... Wide players should - for the most part - play on the same side as their favoured foot. It gives them a chance to hug the touchline and hopefully get a decent cross in at the end of it. there is no harm in switching every so often as a tactic and having the player cut in, but to play the whole game like that seems foolish.

I agree with most of what was said, except the sentence that "the management were caught unawares of the Mercenary jumping ship". The full story may never emerge but what is clear is that some believe he jumped and others believe he was pushed. If he was still here, I believe he would have been a fine teacher for the young strikers. Having said that, surely Craig Brewster, as a pretty decent striker himself can give them the benefit of his on-field wisdom !

We have also disabled the BENI forum for the same reason and moved all posts back into the main forum. We set that forum up in the hope you guys could use it to promote yourselves, and the club in a positive light and give you a place where you could organise things. I dont think you have abused the forum, but your actions this weekend were beyond shocking and allowing that forum to remain would be tantamount to condoning those actions. Despite the apologies given, I dont think some of you realise how shocked and disgusted people are with you. Perhaps you are too young to realise the implications of those songs in the real world, if so, I would suggest some research. I know you cannot un-sing what has already been sung and have apologised, but I think you have a lot of Bridge(end) Building to do before people will take you seriously again.

Thats life mate. It was the same in school, its the same everywhere. Get on with it. It's difficult to read every post but if you report the posts we get e-mail alerts and can deal with things quite quickly. Just checked and no reported posts! Cant' win eh? Damned if we do and damned if we dont. We do have the report function for a reason, and regardless of what network we were on or what software we used for the boards, this facility has been available, and noted within our forum rules (which you tick a box to say you have read and agreed with) for the last 8 or 9 YEARS. Its function, even if you did not read the terms, is fairly self explanatory. As to comparing administrative action taken against you or anyone else with the posts of this weekend, its like comparing apples and oranges. I was away from the computer for the last couple of days - and will be away next weekend too !!! Although I have not yet read everything that went on, I have read a bit and will finish reading the rest when I get a chance. At first glance I am happy that the mods took action where needed and let discussions continue where that was warranted. However, once I have read everything, if I feel any further action is needed, I will discuss it with the mods and take action if needed. No-one is "targetted". when the mods take some form of action against a poster it is always reactive rather than proactive. ie. the action is taken after the poster has broken the rules. We dont have favourites, but I will be brutally honest here and say one thing from my own personal perspective and that is that - No-one is perfect and I personally do treat some posters differently than others !!! If you have been around the site for a long time and I know you, you might just get a little more rope than someone whose first couple of posts are abusive, or who seems to be on a mission to wind us up. Its human nature. Its also why we put together a team of moderators with a very wide set of viewpoints so that we could try and be consistent in what we do. There are times when mods/admin discuss things and one may want a stronger course of action for one reason or another. In the end, we normally come to a consensus which allows us a degree of balance. One action I did take this morning was to make the Mike Smith thread invisible. While I understand some of the frustrations expressed within the thread, I believe that some of the contents crossed the line with regards to our policy of personal comments about club staff/officials in the same way that it did when we moderated the Brewster threads a few weeks ago. This is a thread I will be discussing with the moderators and will reinstate if that is the decision of the team. See last paragraph above. Indeed. Its a fine line we all tread ... we would love to be able to let everyone post what they like but the simple fact is that if we did that we would get shut down and probably sued for some of the garbage that would be spouted. Because of our time within first the RIVALS network and then the SPORTNETWORK where corporate lawyers were available, I am well versed on the fact that we have a legal duty of care as to what we allow to be posted on the site. It is true that the individual poster is ultimately responsible for what is posted, but we as the medium carrying that message can also be held accountable if we do not react and respond to comments or complaints made about our content within a "reasonable timeframe". Everyone has to realise there are limits and whilst we will sometimes allow some of those limits to be pushed somewhat our primary aims are to protect the site (and ourselves). As for some of the "Internet Hardman-erry" going around this weekend, I have received a single complaint and will deal with it. Praise indeed. As I said before, we try. We dont always get it right, but we try. If posters can think before they post, and use the report buttons when something offends rather than back-seat moderating, it might make it even easier for us. Contrary to popular belief, we dont like deleting, moving or editing posts, or banning people, but as mentioned above, when we do it, it is done for a reason and not out of devilment.

Kath - We have always had a supporters club info page. Perhaps you could have a look at it and let us know if any of the info on there is incorrect and we will amend it to suit. http://caleythistleonline.com/club-guide/supporters-club

Fraser :022: :thumb04: - Was reasonably solid, couldnt do much for either goal, but not tested too often. Tokely :018: ;) :015: - The Rosscoe of old. tough in defence and some decent forward runs Munro :D :P :021: - Was solid for most of game, guilty of falling asleep for first goal. McGuire :D :D :D - Same as Munro Hastings :D :D :D - Same as Munro and McGuire Imrie :D :D :D :D :D - Excellent performance. Tenacious, hard working, and covered every blade of grass (as they say) Black :D :D :D - Lucky not to be ordered off and his frustration seemed to impact on his performance Duncan :D :D :D :D - Solid (and as usual "un-noticed") performance McBain :D :D :D - Invisible Cowie :D :D :D :D -Back to his best for most of game. Would've had 5 smilies if he hadnt faded in parts of the second half. Wood :D :D :D - Got the goal and looked decent enough, would have got an extra smilie if he hadnt missed sitter. SUBS Duff :D :D :003: - Solid enough after coming on for the injured McGuire. Rooney :003: :003: :003: - Hard to tell on a 20 minute performance. Would like to see him get a full game sometime. Wilson :003: :003: :022: - Not much of an impact but no real time to make one !!!

You know what, it wasnt a great game, but I will give the lads a thumbs up for trying their damndest to make a game of it. Dougie Imrie was my ICT Man of the Match by miles !! If we played like that in every game, we would be winning a lot more games against the teams that are considered to be "at our level".

attendance 7143 5 mins of stoppage time due to McGuire injury

Cant vote in the POY poll because I am not at the game, but feck me, I am seriously impressed with how Imrie has played today.