Scotty

Rooney/Woods could be a good partnership ... Woods has a 100% strike rate so far (1 game, 1 goal). Also like to hear the Vigurs has got a place in the team.

considering whether he can fit ICT or just CT for his new tattoo

Falkirk -V- ICT Falkirk Stadium, 3PM LINEUPS Audio Coverage Inside UK: ICT Match http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotlan...dia/falkirk.ram outside UK: "Open all mics" http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/sportscotlan.../sportsound.ram

It was more the change of manager that resurrected his career ...... A lot of fans were unhappy when he was recalled, but most are quite happy now. I believe Xausa is back in Vancouver. not sure what he's doing now though.

True - some players hate it, but there are others who revel in it

Interesting question .... I take you mean in terms of caps won whilst at ICT ? Hastings - all 49 caps whilst at ICT !!! [also 7 games for U19s in 96/97, 6 for U23 team 99/00 whilst an ICT player] Xausa - 18 of his 31 caps were during season 1999/00 or 2000/01 whilst at ICT Niculae - 3 caps whilst at ICT

I know your choice is probably based on location, but I would go for QOS too ... just not at Palmerston .... traditionally we have always struggled there as they are usually pretty good at home. No easy games in that lot though.

IHE - one of us needs to take our medication ... I find myself agreeing with you again !!!!

http://community.caleythistleonline.com/in...?showtopic=8088

good point ... that and a few pints makes for a noisy bunch of fans

maybe not yours IHE, but there are a fair few for whom that is true !

In a word ...... alcohol !!!

could I just point out that it is usually frowned upon by media outlets to cut and post an entire story from their publication or website ..... especially without a link. The accepted format is to quote a few of the more pertinent lines, credit it to the publication, and add an external link to the full story. Here is the story link: http://www.highland-news.co.uk/news/fullst...ods_return.html Here is a link to their football page with a couple of other stories .... http://www.highland-news.co.uk/news/catego...4/Football.html

Fair enough - i tend to agree with you anyway. As I said somewhere at the top of this thread I believe it was the wrong team to put out and we made the mistake of underestimating the opposition. The young boys do need games, but I am not convinced they should all start the same game !!!! Perhaps one on from the start with another couple coming off the bench if/when we are comfortably ahead. Anything else, unless forced upon us by injury is folly. Luckily (very luckily considering it went to penalties), we are through, it wasnt pretty but we are through. However, after re-reading much of this thread, I also agree with IHE (thats half a dozen times in 2 days ) when he makes the point about finances and cup runs ...... tonight could have cost us a few quid if we didnt win the penalty shootout so Brew should be thanking all those who scored and Ryan Esson for making pretty much the first penalty save since Jimmy Calder was between the sticks !

Arbroath 2-2 Inverness CT Ayr 0-1 Aberdeen Brechin 0-2 Kilmarnock Hearts 0-0 Airdrie Utd Cowdenbeath 1-5 Dundee Utd Dundee 1-2 Partick Dunfermline 1-0 Alloa Hamilton 3-1 Clyde Hibernian 3-4 Morton Livingston 2-1 St Johnstone Raith 1-3 Falkirk St Mirren 7-0 Dumbarton A couple of pumpings in this round !!! Bottom line though, however ugly it was, we are through.

2-2 now Sellars ( 87pen)

No, I 'm not saying you dont give it a try, or that you don't give it a chance, just saying that you cant force everyone to join by default and then claim to be representative of those members who had no choice. Now that you have changed/added to your original idea with the opt in/out clause, it makes more sense. PS - I dont think I am being hypocritical in the slightest regarding BB - we already have an opt in/out clause here, its called registration and as most questions would come from members of this site, we would indeed be attempting to try and represent those participants by providing a conduit to the club and a means to review the response.

But it still makes it no more representative if those members don't participate. In that scenario, they may be able to say they are representing 'X' number of thousand supporters but how can they really say that is true when they dont know the views of those supporters because those supporters dont participate in anything. They can only ever represent those fans who participate, if they were to claim something else it would be bull**** Think of it in terms of this website .... its open to all, its free to all, and we welcome all ..... if someone new were to register right now, they would have a member number somewhere in the 3100 range ..... yet, because we prune our member list to keep them realistic and the database less bloated, we only report a total of about 1500 members. If we go one step further and split active and inactive members, then we have less than a thousand 'active' members, and splitting it still further, probably around 500 who have actually posted something ..... We are not representative of the whole support, but we are representative of the 500 or so diehards who post on here ... in the same way as the Trust is representative of those members who choose to participate in meetings, or respond to any surveys they may send out (if they do that). I like your idea CaleyD, and I can see where you are coming from, but you cannot force people to be a member of any organisation, even by default.

read that too .... no disrespect to the young lads but sounds like we might be considering too many changes to the team and underestimating the opposition.

It may be making a comeback ........ http://community.caleythistleonline.com/in...st&p=132692

At the end of the day the supporters trust dont represent the views of all fans because not all the fans are members, just as this website, or the supporters club, or the now defunct members' club doesn't represent the views of all fans either as all fans are not members of any of these organisations or groups. I dont think there will ever be a situation where all ICT fans are a member of one huge group because, as has been said by others, not everyone has the same views and some will give reasons or excuses (you decide which is the correct wording) not to join or participate in some or all of them. I was on the committee of the supporters' club for a few years and despite the best efforts and hard work of those involved, a lot of initiatives were met with extreme apathy by fans ... (until they needed a bus to a big away game). I can only imagine that the current organisations (like the trust and the supporters club) suffer the same fate to an extent. I know how many "active" members we have on here and it probably only represents maybe 10% of the fanbase too. If we include "inactive" members, it jumps to over 20% but its still not a majority. Having said that, I believe that everyone, and each of these avenues into the club has a part to play. We may not represent all fans on here, but I believe the more valid points that are raised on here at times are echoed by those who perhaps dont come on here or are not a member of any organisation associated with the club. Therefore it is vital they are aired and discussed. If we as a website, as well as the trust and the supporters club can talk with one voice on the common points that are raised again and again then maybe some positive change can be affected. Fans will also have to realise though that the club simply cant do everything that is asked of them. If they start listening and communicating again though that will be a huge improvement. I believe the club do actually want to listen but the problem is getting that door to open just a little. They have seen and heard so much negativity that they have pulled back into the boardroom and barricaded all the doors. I have enjoyed this thread, as well as Gringo Jnr's thread looking for positive ideas. It has brought a lot of decent discussion to the board, and some good ideas and hopefully the club can see that almost everyone is hoping for positive outcomes rather than more problems. As i alluded to above, we have been urging the club (as has the supporters trust) to reinstate something like "Boardroom Banter" or some other form of Q&A and hopefully, after reading some of the more positive and constructive comments over the last few days (in amongst all the usual stuff) that suggestion will bear some fruit.

Awaiting confirmation, but hopefully some positive news on this front soon

as you say .... Without having the full accounts it's impossible to say what has caused that swing. disappointing but not disasterous so long as we attempt to rectify whatever seems to be the cause of the problem.

For those in the uk it can be viewed here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7582359.stm

was thinking about this ... wouldnt the money spent creating the West Stand also be included in this ? If so, that probably took up a fair chunk of the 147K of the net loss ? So we have a 432K loss which includes wages paid to MN. We then deduct 285k from another part of the accounts which was shares to cover his wage and we are left with a 147K loss. If the west stand is included in the expenditure, then it can also be deducted (cost?) and we would be pretty much left with a number that probably reflects the income we would have got from the cups if we had progressed. The only other question that springs to mind is whether the fee for Rankin is included as that should have been another 100K windfall .......