CaleyD

1. The URL is too long 2. Never a good idea to have a graphic intensive home page. 3. Home page should be informative and explain the site - at the moment it's just a few blurry pics. 4. Page doesn't fit the width of a 1024 x 768 screen which is the most used resolution these days (hate to see what it looks like on an 800 x 600 screen) 5. Tables/Frames all broken in Firefox browser - in the region of 20% of visitors to this site use Firefox. 6. What do Runners and Basketball players have to do with the British Legion? 7. Too many different fonts in different areas 8. The "About Us" section is far too long winded. Needs to be summarised with some of the stuff going in to different sections. 9. Forum links to an external site taking people away from the main site - at the very least it should open in the main frame although integrating it properly into the actual site would be the best way (a lesson we learned here) 10. Page headers are far too big and dominate the page also meaning a lot of scrolling down just to see if the info. All that is without going in and looking at the source code and the mechanics of the site. My advice - if your going to be doing webpages for other people, get away from using these SiteBuilder and Template packages offered by free hosting companies. Take the time to research the different methods of site building and then spend a lot of time practicing. Scotty and I spent over a year looking at the different packages/software available for doing sites before making any start on putting this site together. We then spent 1500 hours putting the site together before we so much as let anyone else see it. Even then we never got it right first time, so you have to have a system which allows you to make changes to the site without too much trouble. Their are hundreds of pages that make up this site, if we want/need to change things template (as we did recently) then you want to be able to do that by changing as few files as possible, not having to go through and change every page on your site manually. Websites for organisations such as the British Legion should not look like they have been knocked together in someones lunch hour, which I'm afraid to say, that one does.

They're Going Home - They're Going Home......u know the rest :015:

De Ja Vu :017:

Ur mama's so fat I once slapped her thigh and rode the waves for a week.

If it's a spade, then call it a spade, I don't buy into all the spin different people try to put on events. However, the one thing we both agree on, and probably the most important, is your last line.....

A debt that is underwritten by Tullochs and other charitable trust board members, so it was as good as a direct investment as far as ICT is concerned. A figure that is often forgotten when counting up what Tulloch etc have put in to the club. A debt that will have been repaid (plus interest) with the extra interest it has generated in the City and the extra money put into the pockets of many local businesses over the last 12 years as a result. Not to mention the fact that a fair chunk of that "Public Money" was used to pay for the upgraded road infrastructure which opened up that entire area for industry and the income that will be generating in rates etc. Also lets not forget the local and football politics that led to us having to build the stadium in it's current location at a far higher cost than it could have been completed elsewhere. All the above are reasons why it annoys me when people trot out the "Look at how much public money you got" line. There are many people ICT have to be thankful too for their existence, but "the public" is not one of them. Charitable Trusts/Supporters Trusts/Sports Trusts - it's hardly suprising people are getting confused. People are often skeptical of what they don't understand which is why I think the time should be taken to educate on how all these things work, interact with and benefit ICT and the wider sporting/football community. Trusts-Trusts-Trusts could be the name of the next ICT related book :015:

Not a sport I love too much but it is amazing how drawn in you get when it's one of your own playing. The boys doing good :021:

Just looking at that too - and am in the process of registering to try it out. :001:

Type it as you wish it to appear.

How do you safely get of a moving merry-go-round whilst drunk?

Cue Gerx denial and insistance that he knows better :015:

He was the only one on the park with any natural rhythm :015:

The trust is not being set up with ICT shares. The ICT shares are in effect worthless to the Trust in terms of a cash value and the only benefit they will gain from them is a large voting right in the club. AS DS will be Chairman of this new Trust and it appears that it will be further manned by hos own people than as far as I can see, nothing has changed in that regard. Any investment which the Trust attracts will be split among all sports, and although this may dilute some of what might have previously gone in to ICT, it will also attract investment from those who want to invest in/support the wider sporting community. How this will all balance out is anyones guess at this stage, but my feeling is that it may actually enhance Investment in ICT whilst helping out with other sports. I am not entirely certain what kind of Trust this has been set up under, but one of the main features/rules of all Trusts I have had dealings with is that they are not allowed to operate for the profit of it's members. In other words, this is in no way, a money making move for DS or Tullochs or anyone else involved in the Trust. Once the shares have been transfered to the Trust then any money made from them has to be used to meet the objectives of the Trust. Looking at that from a practical point of view....as things currently stand, if Tullochs decided to sell their ICT shareholding, any money made would go in the pockets of Tullochs and ICT wouldn't see a penny. Under the Sports Trust setup if they sell any shares the money goes to the Trust and ICT get a share of that money......I know which setup I prefer. Although this is more than likely a PR exercise on the part of DS/Tullochs, that does not mean that it is being done to the disadvantage of anyone.

All makes sense to me, my only worry is that the new faces will lead to another round of "Give us time" excuses with regards to the off the park issues. Here's hoping Alan Savage can hit the ground running and implement some positive changes soon as I for one am sick of the 2nd rate treatment and handling of fans issues that I feel has been getting worse for the last 3 or 4 years.

Have been thinking about this myself and am open to the opinions of those playing in the league. I'll probably run a cup next season along side the league play to see how it goes. We also have the option of changing the number of times you play each of the teams in your league. So for the seasons where we run a cup we could reduce this to playing each other once or something so as the season doesn't drag on too long and those out of the cup aren't stuck twiddling thier thumbs with just one game each week for too long.

ICT have a history of pulling rabbits from the hat at the last moment - as frustrating as that is for the fans who crave news I stopped worrying about it long ago.

I think the SPL are wrong, or this is a new rule off their own invention. Prior to the disbandment of the International Registration Transfer Committee a recall clause would not be permitted as a loan was dealt with in the same manner as a transfer with the simple addition of a return clause which had to fall within the relevant transfer window. However, since the IRTC no longer exists and no body replaced them, all internal loan/transfer deals are administered by the relevant domestic association. As the governing association for the SPL is different than that for the SFL, I believe this loan would fall outside the regulation of the SPL & SFL and become a matter for agreement between both clubs in the same manner as all other transfers where players move between associations. In effect, all that would be needed is an agreement that on production of a medical certificate showing Brown unfit for work then Livingston terminate Fraser's contract (techincally making him a free agent) which automatically kicks in the recall clause. It could be argued that both teams fall under the SFA, but as the SFL and the SPL have their own transfer & loan rules/policies I don't think the argument would hold much water if properly challenged. At the very least the club should be checking this with the SFA.

**Pushes RiG off the Fence** :015:

Will you be back when nothing comes of it so we can say GIRFUY???

He will be if he wants to maintain interest from other clubs. If he doesn't, then he could get to the end of next season with no "better" offer and being given the heave-ho by us. Perhaps he should have a word with Hastings about trying to play these kind of games and how it can backfire.

I would rather have another season of seeing him in an ICT shirt and then let him go on the cheap than let him go on the cheap now. Same goes for the majority of the ICT first team. We have to get over the mentality of taking what we can for players - we have to show we are here to compete, both on and off the park.

This thread has clearly grown beyond football related discussion so has been moved here to "Anything Goes".

I have merged the Dargo for Hibs posts from the Coventry thread with this one to save confusion.

I learned the time when I was about 5 or 6, but I guess some people are a little slower on the uptake :016:

Starting new job so will depend on shifts/times of matches. Will make as many as I can. If anyone who is going wants to write match reports for the site they would be most welcome.