CaleyD

The problem is, it can't. If it could then it wouldn't be on the table. It's part of the compromise needed to get sufficient support to give the proposals...which should be more about the improved financial and voting structures than the league structure...a chance of coming to fruition. To get clubs in the SPL to give up something...mostly money...then you need the sweetener of increased opportunity for improved income. i.e. you only need top 8 to get games against better supported clubs who will put more punters through your gate. To get support from the SFL you need to give them a better bite at the cherry of top league football...an improved chance at success in return for the hard work an investment. The 12-12 to 8-8-8 is the "transition", because you can't get enough support for any proper leap to a larger league. It's far easier to move from the newly proposed setup to a 16 team top league, than it is from what we have at the moment....not purely because it will have improved voting structure, but because (all being well) people in positions of authority will come to accept that there's not this huge gulf between bottom of the SPL and top of Division 1. You also shouldn't believe all you read in the press about this system being used elsewhere. It actually served it's purpose in Austria and Switzerland...and if it was so bad, then why did Switzerland use it for 15 years!!!!

They actually used them at the last Euro's, but I don't imagine them being permitted on a wider scale any time soon....especially in the UK. If they consider standing at a football match to be dangerous, then use of multi-copters has no chance.

Couple of RC flying mates were down checking out the stadium roof for the club today (maintenance check) and did some "extra" footage while they were there...

I thought the voting structure was remaining 11-1 even if reconstruction goes ahead. If that is the case then how does that benifit Scottish football? The board under any new setup would be made up from representatives of all leagues. The level of votes required for different things would also change and move into line with the more acceptable practices of any other business setup these days. How does the change benefit Scottish Football? You no longer have a very small minority dictating what happens with the whole game. As it stands we have an SPL that can effectively be held to ransom by any two teams who might choose to block change. Since the SPL all but controls the games finances then they effectively control/dictate what happens in the rest of Scottish Football. The new setup gives all 42 teams (41 as Rangers are currently only associate members and not entitled to a vote) a proportionate voice in all league matters, ensuring decisions taken at any level are (for the most part) not negatively impacting on anyone at any other level.

What you have to remember is that the middle group of 8 is a "play-off" scenario, and what other play-off scenario do you know of where it doesn't start from a level playing field? It's not possible to keep any points as you have teams coming from two different leagues and those coming up from the lower division will have considerably more points than those coming down from the top one. It can also work just as much to a teams advantage as it can it's disadvantage...if you have a poor start to the season you could be sitting in the bottom two or three places facing certain relegation or a 2/3 game play-off. With the split like this, you have a chance to get yourself sorted out and push on for a return to the top 12 in the new season. People may not like or agree with it, but it is logical and fair to all teams as they know exactly how things are to be played out, there's even competition with all teams playing each other equally home and away before and after the split and a team has to effectively finish 13th to be relegated. Under the current setup it's 12th and if you just introduced play-offs it could be 10th, 11th or 12th. In effect, it gets rid of the current situation whereby teams start the season with a mindset that "11th is good enough for survival"....hopefully that is reflected on the pitch (as it has been this season) by teams going out to win games instead of going out "not to lose". The fairer financial distribution also offers a bit of stability, allowing teams room to go out and play more attacking football whilst protecting then to a certain extent should it not pan out and they do find themselves in that lower group. The new setup makes sense of having a split, giving it some purpose over and above making sure there's an acceptable number of games. Of course, like every setup, you can come up with scenarios where it might not be ideal...but for the majority of teams there's something to be played for all season long. Good starts, bad starts, indifferent starts....they can all effect teams whatever the league setup. It's for clubs to make sure they avoid the pitfalls and with the financial pitfalls being lessened, it should hopefully encourage them to be spending beyond their means through shear desperation to stay in the top league.

It's actually not true that it didn't work in Switzerland either. It served them well to begin with (as change often does with anything) and, just like many other smaller countries, reached a point where it got stagnant and needed something fresh....just like the current setup has done in Scotland.

16 with a split does not offer any opportunity for an even number of home and away fixtures for every club. It also reduces the number of derby matches....things which are not acceptable to enough clubs (only takes two) to prevent them getting the 11 majority required for change.

We've had just about every alternative idea put on the table (some more than once) over the last few years and this is the ONLY one which looks like getting sufficient support to allow change to happen. Sadly the media (and those who form their opinions based purely on the info provided therein) have turned this into a single issue debate, and it is far from being that. Convenient how they all but ignore the fact that fans asked for the following...which is being delivered.... More variety in opposition Improved Promotion, relegation & Playoffs Merging SPL/SFL Fairer Financial Distribution Improved Governance (Accountability) A more Democratic Structure Change from 4 leagues to just 3 What's also conveniently ignored is the fact that fans have pretty much wanted rid of the 12 team league with top/bottom 6 split since the day it came in to force. If all clubs stuck to their guns on the "No change unless I get what I want now" stance, then it would never happen because it takes 11 clubs to change it. What we have in this proposal is a realisation among the SPL clubs (apart from Ross County it would seem) that they were at a stalemate and without agreement on the league structure then all the other good stuff fails to materialise. The 12-12 to 8-8-8 structure was the only setup that ticked enough boxes for enough clubs in order for a viable proposal for change to be put on the table. Why/How have they suddenly found this common ground? I think the way the league has played out on the park this season has a lot to do with that. What we have is a situation where 3 of the clubs in the top half of the league which is giving up a bit of their "share" are those with the lowest budgets....so they are still going to be financially better off anyway. Clubs at the lower end, some of whom consider themselves "big" clubs, were/are going to lose out financially, but with the revised financial distribution they don't lose out by quite so much. They've also realised that any one of them could end up in a relegation battle, so it makes sense to ensure they are better protected financially if that happens. That, IMO, is why some think that this could be a one off opportunity (and I agree)....not to get a specific league structure, but to get a administrative setup that's not held back by a minority in future. League structure doesn't matter right now and with a more democratic organisation running the game, if it it doesn't work then it can be looked at and changed by the will of the majority...which is how it should be. All that aside though, you have to ask yourselves if the majority of fans really are against the idea, or if they really care what the setup is. I don't think any club got more than 150 people along to a meeting about it (we only managed about 40)....even the Scottish Football Survey which could be completed as and when a person so wished got a response rate of under 5%.of Season Ticket holders across the country. Frustrates the hell out of me that fans come on forums, facebook, twitter etc demanding a voice and demanding they be listened to....but when they get the opportunity, they don't take it. Ironically, these people effectively expect the SPL to make decisions based on a lower minority than currently exists with the 11/1 voting structure!!!

Decided that I was going to put together a tartan design based shirt thinking it would look hideous and then post it on here to wind everyone up. However, it didn't quite go to plan because everyone I showed it to liked it!!!!

I think is is a good idea as well. Play each team twice for 26 games then split into top 7 and bottom 7 and play each team twice again for a further 12 games bringing total to 38, the same as now. Should also iron out the pesky too many home or away games we face at the moment with 12 teams. The 12-12 to 8-8-8 delivers the same outcome!!!

First batch of photos are up on Facebook (from CaleyJags.com) - http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.607293052631578.1073741826.286752478018972&type=3

Danny Macdonald got the 5th goal not Barry. Are we not getting the 7th goal that gave Herchie his hattrick! Was there not one disallowed? Hard to keep track when watching through a 2 inch screen and only had a quick skim through the video to get those.

I do feel for the fans, especially when it's out of their control. However, I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who financially mismanage clubs and there would be at least some justice if Masterton were to be the biggest loser (financially). In fact, it seems fairly certain he will regardless, so there's little sense in him not doing some kind of deal with those interested in saving the club....if nothing else, he might salvage some respect. I believe administration is very unlikely to be an option and if nothing is done to ward off the WUO then it would be straight to liquidation. Horrible, horrible situation.

6-2 to the Legends I believe scorers were..... LEGENDS Scott Kellacher Alan Hercher Mike Sanderson Alan Hercher Barry Wilson Mike Sanderson FANS Rob Wilson Davie Balfour

The third angle.....

Yes, but more in regards to the "non-playing" aspects of it...merging SPL/SFL, financial reconstruction etc. My preference would be a larger top league now, but if we can't have it now, then at least we'll have a more democratic setup in order to make it more likely to happen in future. It would be totally naive to view this season as being anything like the "norm". It's never been like this previously and it's not likely to remain like this in the future if not changed. The sooner the better....so yes. Delaying things serves no purpose because we'll just find ourselves 12 months down the line having the exact same discussions and getting nowhere. Also, the sooner we get the new setup in place, the sooner we can see how well it's working and looking to increase the size of the top league. If we're going with the two leagues of 12 at the top, then I think the pyramid should kick in immediately below that. Instead of a league of 18, there should be two leagues of 10 sitting side by side and split regionally. Each of those "regions" can then decide how best to fit in with the structure below that depending on local needs/requirements.

Great day at TCS and everyone I spoke to enjoyed themselves....despite the cold weather. Final score was 6-2 to the Legends, but I think it's only right we declare it a draw with the Legends winning the first half and the Fans winning the second half. So many people to thank for chipping in and helping....so I won't try and list them all for fear of missing anyone, just know that it was appreciated. Special mention to the ICT Chairman, Kenny Cameron, for pulling on a shirt and making an appearance for the fans team....and doing so despite a shoulder injury, so don't anyone tell his osteopath!!!

Will be better next year when we'll know in January.

Sadly, the days of paying after dinner speakers/entertainment a few quid and covering their bar tab are long gone.....especially if you want someone decent. At £25 per head, you'd be struggling to cover the cost of a (decent) after dinner speaker these days, let alone get a 3 course meal thrown in.

The old reserve league was turned into an U20's league in order to encourage (force) clubs to bring through and develop younger players. Whilst some clubs needed to be pushed in this direction, it has never been an issue at ICT because it's pretty much what we used the old reserve league for anyway. I've not looked properly at other squads in the SPL, but I would imagine we probably have one of the youngest, if not the youngest average age of any club...and that may even prove to be the case compared to all 42 professional clubs, not just the SPL. Not bad for a manager who is accused of having no interest in the younger players!!! We very likely have more "young" lads in the squad than we've ever had...and yes, some of them hail from outside the area, but I'd say we've got as many, if not more, who have come through our own setup to some degree or other as well. Finally getting back on its feet after the youth setup was badly affected by our relegations season. ICT have one of the most extensive youth setups in the country, we also have one of the hardest working and most successful community departments...so there's no lack of opportunity for any local kid, at any age, to have a go. I would love to see more local lads in the squad, but I appreciate that the club can't just magic up what's not there. I also appreciate that some of our best hopes are stolen from under our noses because we can't come close to offering financial packages that are used to lure them elsewhere....even when they are as young as 11 or 12. For a Manager accused (by some) of having such a dislike for young players, he sure as hell likes signing a lot of them. He could go down the route of previous managers and managers at other clubs who choose to sign players on the cheap when they are coming towards the end of their careers....players which would be guaranteed first team football if they were to come here. Is it not better that he does what he is doing? Bringing in young players who, like the local young players, have to prove themselves and earn their place in the team!!! I get the fact that not everybody has a full and proper appreciation of the way some things are done at ICT and that, whilst the club are making good inroads into communicating better with the fans, they still have some way to go. What I don't get is the manner in which some people choose to go about making ill-informed accusations. If you have a question about something, then ask before jumping to stupid conclusions and spouting nonsense.

Deserves all he gets. Regardless of why he is at Rangers, he has a contract with them and if he's breaching that by talking to (as far he was aware) agents for other clubs then he can't complain when he gets hauled up for it.

Debt Freeeee, Unlike Ross County We are the famous ICT. We don't give a f*ck, That they've got no Money Cause we are the famous ICT.

Absolutely, all being well we'll have two main cameras, a roaming camera and also cameras behind the goals....maybe a couple of others as well. If anyone has a decentish digital slr (or similar) and would like to assist with match photography then let us know. Our intention is to give the players as close to the full pro matchday experience as possible, so pre/post match interviews etc. will also be done. As will some video/photos from the fans (pro?) training session.

We might need to order in more oxygen!!!

Yes Hope Not Not likely Yes We Shouldn't