Scotty

W-D-W-W-D ..... 11 points

Intertoto rules state "Only clubs which finish the domestic championship in the four positions directly below the UEFA Cup places will be eligible to take part in the competition." so with 2 CL and 2 UEFA slots available, it means we have always needed to finish no worse than eighth ... I wouldnt get too worked up about it however as Hearts will probably end up in the competition .... thats probably why Charlie has already started looking at Denmark, Italy and other options for pre-season.

not on a forum any more, its now a 'poll' ...... you can access it from the right side of the page on the 'main site' or from within the match report or from the main menu on the left of the screen when in the main site

Hows this for an idea ......... bear with me as its a work in progress :015: 3 x leagues of 16 with a pyramid system to allow non-league teams a route to senior leagues. You play each team twice (1xH, 1xA) for a total of 30 games. (15 home games). In the SPL this means you are guaranteed one game against each of the OF at home. (1 game less than the current guarantee of 3 games in total V OF if you are in bottom six) Divisional Cup (for each league) seeded in 4 groups of 4 based on final league positions of the previous season. You play each team twice in round robin format. meaning at least two more home games against teams from the top 8 of the previous year. Total games 6. (3 home games) (based on 05/06 season) Seed1 - Celtic, Hearts, Rangers, Hibs Seed2 - Kilmarnock, Aberdeen, ICT, Motherwell Seed3 - Dundee Utd, Falkirk, Dunfermline, Livingston Seed4 - Team 13, Team 14, Team 15, Team 16, Two qualify from each group and play it out on a straight knock-out basis. A UEFA Cup slot is awarded to the winning team. The law of averages says that Rangers / Celtic might be likely to make the last eight so you have a good chance of getting yet another home game against them if you draw them. As its a cup game, you may even prefer to draw them away from home as the revenue would be split. Scottish Cup - no change League Cup - replaced by the divisional league cup (above) Thats 18 home games guaranteed every season with at least two league games at home Vs OF and the potential for a few more depending on the cup draws (keep the club accountants as well as the fans happy hopefully). Come the end of the season the bottom two teams in each division are relegated and the top two in the division below are promoted. If a team doesnt have the stadium criteria for their new division they are given 12 months to complete this or are automatically relegated the following season. the third bottom team in each division plays off against the team in third place in the division below - home and away - winner takes (or keeps) the spot in the higher division.

have added a poll with some of the suggestions I have heard and have also given users the opportunity to change their vote. This will allow users to suggest other options which can be added to the poll if they are sensible. Users could then change their vote if they decided the new option was better than their original choice !!!

According to the P&J, ICT are to vote to block the move towards a 10 team SPL ....... {LINK} Graham Bennett has backed the current 12 team setup saying that a league of 10 would not be good (which is understandable to all teams who usually find themselves mid table or at the lower end), but he also said he was against a league of 16 which seems to be the fans' favourite option. He is against 16 because of the lost revenue for games against Celtic and Rangers ...... Seems quite strange when it was former Caley Thistle chairman David Sutherland who tabled the proposal for a 10 team SPL and 12 team SPL2 ..... Under that proposal, SPL2 would start with 10 teams, and the SPL with 12. For the first two seasons, there would be no promotion from SPL2 but there would be one relegation meaning year 1 would be 12-10, year two 11-11 and year three and thereafter would be 10-12. Cant say I like the 12 team setup as it is at the moment, and I would agree with Grassa that 10 is also not a good number as there is a significantly higher risk of relegation which would probably lead to a far lower quality of football as teams would be content to try and grind out 1-0 wins etc. From my point of view, the whole system needs a shakeup from the ground up but I dont think anyone has the bottle (or the support) to make that happen .... I favour 3 leagues of 16 with a pyramid system below that but clearly (and understandably) clubs will probably never vote for that as it means they lose precious games against the OF ...... so whats the solution ??? discuss ....

The Callaghan Labour government passed the Scotland Act in 1978. The act required a post legislative referendum to be ratified. Although 51.6% of voters voted in favour, because the overall turnout was only 63% the portion of eligible voters who voted yes was only 32.9% of the entire electorate (living or dead !!) and the controversial 40% amendment (thanks George Cunningham) came into play. Callaghan vowed to repeal the 1978 act but never got round to it as the Labour Govt lost a vote of confidence a short time later so it was Maggie Thatcher's govt that struck the act down in July 1979 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_1978 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_referendum,_1979

Whilst you would be correct if I was referring to Neanderthal Man as a racist, I was actually using it in another context. It is accepted by most reference material to have the following definitions ... :004: –adjective 1. of or pertaining to Neanderthal man. 2. (often lowercase) Informal. primitive, unenlightened, or reactionary; culturally or intellectually backward. –noun 3. Neanderthal man. 4. (often lowercase) Informal. a. an unenlightened or ignorant person; barbarian. b. a reactionary; a person with very old-fashioned ideas. True Also true Even this is true, although I would hope most of us have the good sense to publicly disagree with those opinions we find offensive and that the authorities have a clear definition of where it crosses the line from opinion into incitement or one or more words that end in -ism.

Thats why I dont want to keep being negative about him. Unlike previous 'starlets' such as Martin Bavidge, I believe Rory has a chance at the top level .... but its probably as frustrating for him as it is for us that things havent clicked for him yet. A loan spell worked wonders for Barry Robson, he came back from Forfar brimming with confidence - even if he didnt like the idea to begin with - and look at him now ... captain of an established SPL side and on the verge of a Scotland call-up (or should be).

Jailender ? Feyenoord ?

if we are going to be pedantic, he actually scored TWO this season :023: 09/09/06 V Motherwell (SPL) 23/08/06 V Dumbarton (League Cup) and his other one 07/01/06 V Ayr United (Scottish Cup) so his strike rate for last year was 1 in 18 !!! but for this year its 2 in 22 which is a bit better .... however, to get back on topic ... if Dargo goes, then the answer is a proven striker if we can find one and not Rory (by all means 'develop' the lad as one for the future, perhaps by letting him go on loan to a team in the first or second (sure Pele could get the best out of him) but his confidence is currently at zero and even if its true we are not helping by pointing all this out on an Internet forum so I am going to try and say no more ;) )

Based on the figures above ...... Strike Rates McAllister - 3 in 44 (6.82%) 1 in every 14.66 games Dargo - 29 in 63 (46.03%) - 1 in every 2.17 games Wyness - 13 in 54 (24.07%) - 1 every 4.15 games Bayne - 15 in 99 (15.15 %) - 1 in every 6.60 games To be fair to McAllister, he has started fewer games than the rest, and his sub appearances have tended to be shorter than the rest (5 or 10 minutes) so the huge gulf in strike rates may not be a totally fair reflection but it is clear that we only have one prolific scorer, two others who can find the net and one who needs to find the net or move on.

Table now updated ........ Barry Wilson is very close to winning. Only Graham Bayne or John Rankin can beat him see HERE

On a positive note ...... John Rankin - after a slow start, is showing why we paid 65K for him. weighing in with important goals and generally very talented. Still drifts in and out of games a bit but good potential. Markus Paatelainen - my tip for next year's POY !!! - he proves that talent is around in the lower leagues if we look hard enough. He has seemed decent enough in the games he has played and despite only moving up to the SPL recently has weighed in with a couple of decent goals already. Barry Wilson possesses a real threat of scoring goals from the right of midfield, if Markus can do the same from the left and Rankin gets a few from the centre of midfield we will have what a lot of teams want which is a midfield that can score goals !!!

GK - I was under the impression that Ridgers was only on loan until the end of the season, and there has been no real indication otherwise. Defence - definitely need cover Midfield - agree we are pretty strong here in that we have an abundance of bodies so perhaps this area can be overlooked unless someone startling is available Attack - I hate to say it, but the evidence is there. Rory may have an abundance of raw talent and may score goals for fun in reserves, training or other non-competitive places but he cannot (yet) do it in the first team. A 7% strike rate - 1 goal every 14 or 15 matches - is simply not good enough. Maybe a summer away with the Scotland U20 squad will improve him ? Maybe the summer break will allow him to recharge his confidence and be his turning point, or maybe he will never fulfill the potential that was expected of him but we have to have at least 4 decent strikers. We currently have 3 with Dargo, Bayne and Wyness but if Dargo leaves, as seems increasingly likely, then we need at least one if not two strikers who can hit the back of the net on a regular basis.

good post 'nude...' You have put exactly what I was trying to say in the other thread far more eloquently than I did.

when you look at the squad list, its scary !!!! GK: Fraser, Ridgers (on loan-in) LB: Hastings, Golabek (on loan-out)(?) CB: McCaffrey, Munro RB: Tokely LM: Paatelainen, McBain, Rankin, Morgan (on loan-out)(?), CM: Black, Duncan, Hart RM: Wilson, Cowie (?) FW: Wyness, Bayne, Dargo (?), McAllister, McSwegan (?) [li]We need a GK as backup to Fraser or to push him for the #1 spot.[/li] [li]We need a LB to challenge Hastings for that spot. Will Golly come back ? if he does will he push him ?[/li] [li]We need at least one central defender to be in the mix with Caff and Grant[/li] [li]We need a RB to keep Tokely on his toes ... Proctor anyone ?[/li] [li]We have more than we need on left side of midfield. Will Morgan return ?[/li] [li]We have enough decent players for centre of midfield with Rankin, McBain and Cowie all able to play there as well as Black, Duncan and Hart[/li] [li]We may need a right sided midfielder to take some of the burden away from Barry who probably wont be able to play all games. Can Hart/Cowie cover this ?[/li] [li]We need a goalscorer. Wyness and Bayne appear to be the logical starting lineup if Dargo goes. McSwegan may not get a contract and much as I want to say differently, Rory has not done anything to merit a place - 3 goals in 44 appearances does not a striker make.[/li] There are decent youngsters floating around - Sutherland, Soane, Kerr, Wood (?) - but are any able to slot straight into the squad ? I dont know. Its a big rebuilding job at the end of the season .......

that table is correct up to the turn of the year ...... now that we have reached the split, I will try to update it this week so that the totals go to end of march.

I would tend to agree with this on the whole - although I would perhaps adjust it to say that there is no problem with 99.9% of ICT supporters as we do have a few neanderthals too. I have seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears.

I have already let the moderators know my feelings about the events of the last week or so (abuse, off-topic postings, spamming etc), but have decided it is valid to let everyone know...... Some may think my comments are melodramatic, that is your call, not mine. However, I can assure you that the following comments were not made lightly and came directly from the heart. This first comment was in response to a question from one of the mods asking whether it might be valid to 'filter' the comments in the other thread and re-open it for reasoned debate. "I believe the debate to be a valid one as you will probably see from my own comments, but it was not just IHE who caused it to be shut down. There was more than one person starting to throw out personal insults and I have feckin had it with this type of crap. Right now, i am a hairs breadth away from putting the forums into admin mode PERMANENTLY." After a little consideration of my initial comments, this was my next comment to the mods .... "I may need to walk away from the forums for a few days ...... if I dont, I may do or say something I will later regret and have to walk away from them permanently. The bill came in for the renewal of the domain name the other day, and for the first time in 14 years i found myself questioning whether it was worth the hassle ........" After ruminating on this subject in the car on the way to work, I have one further comment to make and it is as follows ...... When this site was official I acknowledge that we were - at times - over zealous with the administration - some might say censorship - of the forums. We had no choice in this. We have tried like **** not to go to that place since relaunching the site as an unofficial one only to be continually 'tested' by a small but persistent group of users who seem to take pleasure in either ruining threads, slinging out personal insults or both. As of right now that stops. We can 'ban' users if we need to although we honestly do not want to do that. However we also have another alternative which is to remove posting privileges for a period of time and we will most definitely begin to use this more frequently if the spamming/abuse continues. For the avoidance of all doubt, be aware that we will impose this sanction on anybody we think is abusing the terms and conditions of the forum, whether they are a regular poster, an occasional visitor, or a brand new member. I am sick and tired of all this garbage and if it means we lose a few posters then so be it, they will likely be replaced with others who can actually hold a conversation without it slipping to the levels it has done more recently. TM4TJ - good post (mostly). I agree there are lots of things going on in this world that warrant our attention more than a 'throwaway' remark at a football stadium. However, I believe that Sophia - who I disagree with a lot of the time - was right to bring it up. For my own sins, I may have gone over-the-top in my 'name and shame' comment as I do not know whether the person making the comment made it as a racial comment or whether they were coming from a place of ignorance or stupidity but ultimately this does not excuse the comment. In either event, I feel the initial post was valid as were some of the comments that followed it - even those I didnt agree with. It is a highly emotive subject and you are possibly right that this may not be the place to discuss it in depth, but as it was an 'incident' at a Caley Thistle match then I also cant say it shouldnt have been posted. When it comes to racism, there is no 'easy place' - condemn it and on one side you are seen as being 'PC' or 'over compensating', tell someone they are over-reacting or that there is nothing wrong with a comment and you may be called racist yourself. In this case, whichever side of the fence you find yourself on, I think we could possibly all agree that the comment was, at best, "inappropriate" and that the person should perhaps have been taken to task for it. To allow it, either explicitly or passively perhaps lets that person thinks they can get away with worse the next time, to vilify and ostracise the commenter might be going a little too far.

Although I think there were a number of valid points made in the topic, it was closed because it degenerated into personal abuse and was taken way off-topic by some users. There was no single poster responsible for its closure, it was a 'team effort'. Well done to all involved :007: I have no objection to a fresh thread being started - in the ICT forum as it is an ICT related topic - but will also have no hesitation in closing it (and any other thread) that descends into abuse/spamming. SM - I ask that you reconsider .... I know who you are, and your contributions to the board are welcomed. I would like to think you and others will be around to call out "<insert prefix here>-ists" of all variations ........

Unfortunately, even though this is an extremely valid subject, this thread, like many before it has degenerated into personal insults and been dragged off-topic and the best thing to do is close it.

It is scary to think that the 'leader' of the western world uses the same avatar as me :015: :015: :015: :015:

Well that's your opinion dude... It certainly is, and I am comfortable with it. so would they make the same comment ?? you didnt answer the question ..... No I would not - JC pays a lot of money to make his skin that colour .... Russell was born into his.

DBS - there is nothing remotely acceptable or 'frivolous' in commenting that you did not see a black person because they werent smiling. End of story. You can call it humorous if you want, I call it racist. If the person meant it as a joke, it was simply not funny and does have racial overtones. Unlike some things that 'suddenly' become unacceptable because of 'political correctness' this old chestnut has been floating around as unacceptable for decades so ignorance is no excuse. Would the same person have made the same comment about another (white) Falkirk player ? If they had, would it have been 'frivolous' ? It is wrong, wrong, wrong and I just cannot believe that anyone can find a way to justify the comment. I dont often agree with Sophia, but on this occasion I do. DBS you mention 'self-policing' as if it were a bad thing. Our support has been largely self policing for years and I have previously witnessed it in action at Love Street where animal noise and comments about a particular fruit were directed towards a certain Mr Quitongo. It happened once in that game, but it did not happen a second time as it had been 'dealt with'. Sophia has only asked that we condemn racism, and no-one should have a problem with that. On this occasions she hasn't even gone as far as I have which is to suggest the culprit is named and shamed .............. which I believe they should be. Passive acceptance of racism will not make it go away.