CaleyD

What seems to have escaped this so called "Fan" is that what we do is for the benefit of the club and in trying to achieve whatever it is they think they are doing, it's not the site (or those who run it) who will suffer. I wouldn't expect this kind of petty minded silliness from any fan of the game, far less someone who claims to be "one of our own". It's unfortunate that PayPal took the stance they did, despite us having had the "rules" of the player sponsorship checked out by lawyers (yup, that's the extreme some people force us to have go to) when we were threatened on this before, but they (PayPal) were ultimately quite helpful when it came to the proposed solution...and as Scotty points out, probably did us a favour in the long run by pushing us along a more suitable way of doing things.

The FFIT Programme is great and I would encourage anyone who wants/needs to lost a little bit of weight and/or get a bit fitter to sign up and give it a go. I took part in the last one and lost a stone and a half during the course (12 weeks) and have lost over another half stone since (not been near the scales in a while to check how much)....and aim to lose another couple by the turn of the year. I didn;t take part in the football tournament, but some of the guys who have been on the course meet weekly for a game of football as part of their ongoing commitment to keeping active and it looks like it's paid dividends.....so a big congratulations to them on winning the tournament.

Circumstances (beyond anyones control) meant we missed the deadline for confirming that we wanted to continue with it.

Too early for making predictions.... Ask me again when we know what our full squad is and we see what other teams have pulled together over the closed season.

No plans to do one at this stage, but if there's enough demand then we could look at doing something. The law prevents consumption of alcohol in vehicles travelling to or from a sporting event. However, the bus will be going direct from Inverness to the away ground (short comfort stop somewhere en-route if needed) and will arrive in ample time for anyone wishing to grab a drink before the game to do so. Return will also be direct, getting back in time for anyone wishing to head out to do so. Any time we've run buses in the past we have always tried to organise a pub/club for people to head to and if practicable we'll endeavour to do that for as many away games as possible over the season. Buses will depart from, and terminate at the Social Club in Greig Street with a pick up/drop off at the stadium. Any other pick up and drop off points en-route will be by prior arrangement.

I'm loving the idea of the Christmas Eve fixtures....especially with them keeping the K.O. times at 3pm (although a couple will probably be moved for TV). Unlike Boxing Day games where many are likely to be suffering a little from over indulging the day before and perhaps swithering on heading out to the game, everyone will be in the festive mood and it should make for a better day out for all. Christmas Eve game also means players and staff can relax more on Christmas Day and not have to worry about being in work the next day. Far better than the idea of a mid week fixture where people will be working on the day of the game and probably the day after. Kids are in school till the Thursday, so a Tuesday/Wednesday game does not fit with that either. I really hope ICT refuse any change of date.

Safe so long as your virus protection is in order.

Whoa...chill dude, I was merely trying to inject a bit of humour.

That's a bit like saying a serial bank robber should get a reduced sentence because he stole less in his last job!!!

I think the really important question here is....What was 12th Man doing on the Partick website?

Hmmm....yet somehow he managed to just about save us from relegation when most would have given no hope upon his arrival, win promotion at the first time of asking and secure a 7th place finish in the SPL (narrowly missing out on top 6). I'm not going to argue with your rating of individual players, that's largely opinion and we won't all agree....however, some would have been signed with a view to being starting 11, some would have been seen as squad players and one or two were perhaps reluctant signings but needed due to circumstance. They may not all have been superstars, but they got the job done and that's what matters.

This is separate from the Supporters Club and will operate on a slightly different timetable. It's aimed at those who wish to arrive at the away location a little earlier and get straight back up the road after the game, which is what people have been asking us for. Final prices haven't been set yet as we've not had a chance to get together since confirming the bus operator we'll be using (which will be D&E Coaches) and the related costs.

This is where the manager comes in to his own. I would expect with those on 1 year deals that are showing promise, then we'd be talking to them sooner rather than later with a view to extending their stay. I would say, for the most part, players looking for new clubs/contracts would be more inclined to up their game. I also don't agree with the argument that Rooney somehow dipped in form towards the end of the season. It's the manager who's offering the shorter contracts, so I imagine he's ok with the challenge. Our own young players are all being offered 2 year contracts as far as I can see, so the 1 year thing doesn't really effect them. Sorry, but as much as I am a fan of ICT, I would expect any young player with ambition to be looking at ICT as nothing more than a stepping stone to bigger and better things, especially at the moment. Again, this is for the manager to "manage" and as he seems to be doing things his way...unlike in the past when there's always been a hint of interference from above...then you have to assume he's comfortable with it. Injuries etc can impact heavily on any team whether it's made up of long serving players or not, in fact we had a bit of that issue last season. What's more, it was the new/young guys who stepped into the breach and performed to ensure we didn't flounder and a couple of them performed so well they became mainstays in the matchday squad. It's not as if we are starting the season with a squad of 20+ strangers, nor are we likely to be doing so in the future. Our turnover of players will very likely increase and time will tell whether or not that's for the better or not. It feels like unfamiliar territory, but we've had closed seasons like this before where a number of new faces have come in. The difference this time is that it seems to be happening through choice instead of circumstance...and we have afar more experienced manager at the helm who is conducting proceedings. Some of the new players will move on to bigger and better things, some will need more development before moving on, some will find their level here and some won't make the grade. We seem to be cutting out the risk of being stuck with those that don't make the grade whilst remaining attractive to players with potential looking for a step up who don't want to be tied in anywhere. What we lose with 1 year deals is the chance to cash in on those who move on and up, but football is hardly a sellers market these days and big pay days for young players are few and far between so you have to manage the risk v reward. We seem to be betting on our own young guys in that regard (which makes sense as those are the players we know best) and giving them the 2 year deals, and that's a good thing. One dud on the books for a year longer than we want them there could easily wipe out any fee we might get for selling on one other player and given the ratio of players released to players sold and the fees being commanded just now, then those are not good odds. I'd love for us to be giving players 2 or 3 year deals, but right now, I don't think we can afford to do that and Butcher looks to be thinking outside the normal parameters expected from ICT to overcome that. It could be argued that he's simply being more realistic by not chasing the elusive "big sale" that this club has been chasing for 17 years without success.

Advantages of 1 Year Deals that immediately spring to mind..... - No long term financial commitment. - New players may not be as good as expected and can be offloaded easily. - Players with potential to play at higher level don't feel "tied in" and willing to give us a year. - Prevents complacency, players always playing for new contract...either with us or elsewhere. - Keeping the team "fresh" with new faces makes it tougher for teams to get a read on us as seasons go by. Had it been a manager like Brewster who was adopting this kind of policy then I would be really worried, but Butcher seems to have ample contacts for finding (free) players year on year and if he's happy and confident that he can whip a squad with a higher than usual turnover rate into shape every summer then it's a policy that could work....it's risky, but you learn/achieve nothing by standing still and doing the same thing time after time. I notice some of these contracts also seem to be offered with an "option" included, so it's just as conceivable that Butcher does want to give some longer deals but they don't want to commit to that. With the financial state of the game in Scotland as it is right now a prudent approach to spending and future spending commitment does make some sense. (I'd still be happier seeing more longer term contracts though)

That was a typo in the information passed over to us, we queried it and it's been confirmed that it's actually 7:30pm for the Bristol game.

News released today of the launch of the ICT Official Travel Club....Full Story Here

I've seen a rule somewhere (FIFA, UEFA, FA, SFA, SPL or something) that states no player can enter into a contract with another club whilst still in the employ (under contract) with another, so "Pre-Contracts" would more likely be defined (in law) as a "Letter/Statement of Intent". Legal enforcement would then depend on the content of that statement, and as it's unlikely to contain full details of the terms of the contract then it would be easy for a lawyer (from either party) to find an out if they felt the need. The "risk" to player/club in not following through would be damage to reputation and might make anyone a little less likely to deal with them in future. I don't think there's much to worry about here, the player still wants to come, the club still want him to come and it seems that Stockport are just playing hardball in the hope they can get a fee....either from convincing the player to sign for someone down south or by forcing our hand to get him here earlier by us paying them something. Give it a few days and Stockport might realise the only money they can get is a couple of weeks wages from releasing him now instead of at the end of the month.

Of course it provides less value to sponsors. A sponsor wants their name/product presented to as many people as possible. We already know that a high percentage of fans don't want a 10 team SPL and aside from the loss of fans of 2 teams in a reduced setup, you will also lose fans from every team that would quickly become board of watching their team playing the same opposition over and over again....the game is already losing fans for that reason with 12 teams and 10 would only make it worse. You're kidding yourself if you think a sponsor values quality of the product over the number of people that see their name/product as a result of any tie-up. You could argue that a league with only the 2 OF teams would deliver the best quality games, but I can't imagine sponsors would be falling over themselves to link up with that!!! Parachute payments are a 2 or 3 year deal (forget which). But the 10 team proposal talks about making the money normally paid to 11th and 12th available to Div 1 on a permanent basis to provide winning teams a boost in funds for when they come up as well as when they go down. It effectively removes the argument that with only 10 teams everyone gets a bit more of the pie. So who funds the development of these young players to get them to the stage where they can be considered "Elite"? Are we expecting this to be done by teams in the lower leagues who can barely afford to make ends meet as is? Surely if the "Elite" teams want to develop "Elite" players then they should be doing this themselves and surely any system that encourages..forces..the "Elite" teams to meet their responsibility in these areas is a good thing...not only for the league but for developing home grown talent that are the future of our National team? I really wish people would get rid of this idea that the OF are a "cash cow". The additional income the larger crowds bring also incur vastly increased (and disproportionate) costs for clubs in terms of policing, stewarding, clean up, stadium repairs etc. The error in your argument is that you rank quality ahead of entertainment. I think this demonstrates that you don't grasp, or are refusing to recognise, that the fans are bored with playing the same few teams over and over each season. There's maybe a half dozen teams that could be added to the SPL without impacting any on the "quality"....and a match between Falkirk and ICT can be a helluva lot more entertaining than a match between one of the OF and ICT. We've, historically, done pretty well against the OF given the gulf in resources, but I wouldn't rate very many of those matches as being up there in terms of the most entertaining or providing any more "quality" than any other game. So yeah, give me a match against Raith, Falkirk or QotS instead of a game against the OF any day of the week. With all due respect, Gabby, I think you are perhaps too far removed from the day to day stuff that goes on with the game in Scotland to understand where the rest of us are coming from. You don't have to go through a season watching the same opposition over and over, you don't get to see first hand how boring and tedious that can be. You talk about creating an "Elitist" league but give no convincing argument about how that feeds down the chain and helps improve things or is for the benefit of the game as a whole. One of the biggest problems in Scotland is the Gulf that exists between the SPL and Div 1, a gulf that many find it hard to bridge without seriously compromising their clubs existence. A 10 team "Elite" league only serves to increase that gulf and heighten the problem. Surely any argument for an "Elitist" setup is the argument for Self Interest? I certainly don't see how it could be argued that offering to share the pot (and perhaps grow the pot in the process) among more teams can be seen as self serving...other than from the basis of improving the sport as a whole, and benefiting from the same improvements as everyone else. As has been said, more concisely, by others. Pursuing a path that the customers don't want isn't going to bring in any more money or any more fans. It doesn't matter how "Elitist" you make it, if people aren't watching it then sponsors aren't going to be interested, TV is not going to be interested and money will quickly dry up and the game will die on it's knees faster than it already is. Any plan that ignores that fact is a plan that is going to fail from the outset.

If you want to save yourself the ebay fees I'll make you an offer on it (or stick it in the sites for sale/wanted section).

That's what I said

I would agree that Scotland is not big enough (however you measure "big") to support 42 professional/semi-professional teams. However, I don't see how trimming the top league and reducing the number of players there fixes anything, and if you also scrap the U21 rule then all you are doing is cutting your own throat in terms of player development at the top end of the game. Teams will become so afraid of relegation that they won't want to risk trying out the younger guys and will instead be spending abroad to bring in "proven" players. Home OF games aren't the "pot of gold" everyone thinks they are....and I couldn't actually tell you the last time we sold out in Inverness for an OF game. What's more, there's a good few people who actively avoid OF games these days so the draw is no longer there for OF opposition fans either. When it comes to travelling to away games, I normally try to get to at least one of the away games against each of the opposition and don't bother going to the second one....I rarely bother going to any of the away OF games as it's not the most pleasant of experiences. If we had a 16 or 18 team league I would be pushing to go to 15 or 17 away games, with a 10 team league I'm looking at 9 (seven if you count the fact I'm not fussed about the OF). Add to that the fact that teams don't want 4 games against each other a season....even the OF (clubs and fans) have publicly stated the don't want it. The police don't want it, Scottish Parliament don't want it...nobody other than the mysterious person Doncaster has been speaking to at the TV companies want it, and even the TV are denying having had any such discussion. People want more variety, and the only way to provide that is to increase the size of the league. 14 is not ideal as it maintains the split and I don't like the split, but it's at least a step in the right direction. Yes, this seems to be the argument being pedalled by the pro 10 team brigade at the SPL, but it has absolutely no basis in fact. Why? Because in order to get the changes through they would have to bribe the two teams being cut from the top league by offering them the money they are getting now by way of parachute payments and increased money for winning the 1st Div....so effectively nobody would be any better off. You then factor in that teams would have 1 home game less in the season, falling attendances through boredom of playing the same teams all the time, less exposure for sponsors due to the league being made up of fewer teams...and you quickly realise that you would more likely be reducing your income. I would argue the contrary. Reducing the size of the top league would reduce the likelihood for development of our own young players at the highest level...how does that benefit Scottish Football as a whole? Surely the "Self Interest" of the fans is the interest that counts the most...how does driving away the fans benefit Scottish Football as a whole? Reducing league exposure for sponsors by having less teams devalues the product leading to lower income for the sport...how does reducing income for the sport benefit Scottish Football as a whole? In conclusion, I would say that these are all things that have finally dawned on the majority of current SPL teams. Hence why we've gone from a situation where 8 to 10 teams were for all for it, with a couple on the fence...to a situation where you now have 8 teams against it and all sitting round the table looking for something which actually is for the benefit of the game as a whole. The amount of money coming in to the game is not the main issue (although like anyone else we always want more)...it's the distribution of that money. The OF take at least 32% of that income, but the reality is that if they were to lose that tomorrow it would make very little difference to their turnover. A mid table finish for someone like ICT brings an income which makes up about a 16 to 18% of our turnover...finishing in the top 2 of the league only brings one or other of the OF about a 3% of their turnover (rough figures). Makes you wonder if the vastly distorted distribution of income is actually designed to help the top teams or hinder the lower teams!!! If you want to start doing things that are for the benefit of the game as a whole, then that's where you need to start.

I never made the sponsors night this year so not sure what happened with things. Sure it will be sorted out in due course.

I had to have a wee laugh at the whole "buying the World Cup" thing. The process for securing the World Cup basically comes down to who is willing to spend the most money on it...in other words, the winners are buying the World Cup. I know that when it comes down to those with a vote securing some kind of personal gain then that's a step too far, but it's hardly surprising that a process which encourages big spending leads to some of that money being spent where it will generate most benefit for least outlay...i.e. buying votes. Not saying it's right, just that people shouldn't be so surprised by it all. P.S. Have Chuck Blazer and Santa Claus ever been seen in the same room at the same time!!!

I'd wear that.