CaleyD

That'll be the season he dislocated his shoulder and only played 16 games and got a handful of last minute sub appearances. The 98 other goals he scored for us more than covers that minor blip....don't you think?

Why do we use the phrase "That's no excuse" when we don't accept a reason as being justified? Either way, it's not really important. I stand by what I say, just because someone cites something as being a reason, it does not automatically infer they are trying to justify it, and the whole idea that by doing so I (and others) become some kind of bigot by default is shear nonsense and does nothing in helping to deal with the problem. Kind of ironic really that those making the most noise about "dealing with the problem" seem to be among those who are least tolerant to others opinions on the matter and the first to label anyone who disagrees with them.

The problem is Scotty, it's getting to the stage where people are not allow to call him out for what he says/does because in doing so you then become a member of the "Highland Taliban" or "one of them" who's only trying to justify the sectarian abuse Lennon has been getting. Also, in regard your description of reason and excuse. I think you may have them the wrong way round (or opposite to the way I understand them). I remember sitting in court watching another case when the judge asked the defendant if he had any excuse to offer for his actions. After he responded the judge thanked him for his honesty but pointed out that what he had done was provide reason, not excuse....he then got hit with the max fine. Excuse, in my book, suggest a justifiable action. Those guilty of letter bombs/bullets etc may have their reasons (however misguided), but they cannot be excused and their actions are not justified.

You're missing the point....these things do not happen for NO reason. We may not agree with or accept that the reasons are any justification, but it doesn't mean they are not the reasons, or part of the reason. My, or anyone elses, recognising or citing something as a reason does not automatically mean we are seeking to offer justification and it certainly does not make us sectarian or bigoted. I've posted no such thing. I agree, but in dealing with the issue you can't simple sweep the fact that Lennon incites opposition fans under the carpet with the excuse that "he doesn't deserve what is happening to him". Of course he doesn't deserve it, but that doesn't mean he's not adding to the problem with the way he himself acts. You can't say the actions of others are not justified based on his behaviour and then justify what he does by saying it's because of what he is/has been subjected too....or worse, just ignore his actions altogether. Of course it's cause for his abuse, whether you think it justified or not. The cause/reason lies in the mind of the person committing the act. Lennon is being "abused" for more reasons than his religion or the club he manages...I've given him pelters on several occasions (as have many on here, including some of those berating others for it) but it had nothing to do with religion or him being a Celtic player/manager....but the way the whole thing is being handled, everyone is being shoved into the one "you're sectarian/bigoted" pigeon hole....that does nothing to deal with the problem, in fact in only serves to piss off many of the people you want/need on side in dealing with it when you wrongly categorise them along with the others. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that ICT fans who give him a bit of stick because of his past antics fall anywhere close to being in the same category as those who physically attack him or send him letter bombs/bullets.....but that's how your point is coming across.

Bit of an unjustified rant there Sorted, see nothing in the posts quoted that said these things justified the bomb threats etc. What some people seem to forget is that it's possible to cite Lennons actions and behaviour as reasons for what he is being subjected to without condoning it or saying it was justified. What's sad is that people think that because the guy has received a bomb threat then he can now do no wrong and anyone who brings up any past transgressions is in some way supporting the threats and giving them validity.

If I did, it wouldn't say too much for how old you must be, Charles

Was going through the players list today trying to get it straight in my head who was still here and who was gone and it suddenly struck me that I'm older than the entire squad.....How depressing is that!!!

Or maybe there was dozens of arrests and the press only reported on these as they have a public profile.

If they're free, I say we just sign them all.

I rate Niculae for what he did during his time here....although I do think some people had expectations of him that were far too high. He may only have bagged 8 (league) goals, but he was responsible for assisting in many more and due to him being rated by the opposition he often found himself being double teamed which left gaps for others to exploit. I would suggest that the mess surrounding his departure did more to damage his reputation/rating with the fans than anything else. I would also suggest that you can't rate a player based on cost, because if you do then Niculae will always come out at #1 because he's the only player we've ever made a profit on. People will always rate different players for different reasons. What I see as being important part of their game, others may not and vice versa. One thing that can't be argued is that it doesn't matter on which criteria you rate Barrowman, he always comes out bottom of the pile. Even if you only rated him as mediocre on his arrival he still cost the club the most and delivered the least.

I think a lot of inroads have been made in regards to our home support in that respect. Incidents this past season have been few and far between and that's in large part due to the club/trust/fans involved sitting down on a few occasions and discussing everyones problems/issues and putting in place workable solutions and initiatives. Short of having everyone sit on their hands in silence during games you'll never stop all complaints, however now that the club have officially set aside a section and everyone is/has been made aware that if you sit there then you can expect things to be a bit more boisterous/lively than in other areas, any petty complaints can now be justifiably met with a "You were warned" response.

Even if the club have/do end up paying out to Niculae, we'll still be in the black from the deal (including wages). Although we could well have blown any profit on legal fees (and some). Barrowman was on a higher wage than Niculae (the ?4k a week was BS), was only slightly less in terms of signing on fee and we got feck all for him when he was ditched. I don't want to give any more detailed info on this as I'm not sure on the current state of play with courts and appeals and things and wouldn't want to land myself in bother by "leaking" what could still be information sensitive to the case. No matter how you dissect it, Barrowman was the biggest financial mistake (player wise) that ICT ever made.

The original question from Charles was with regard to Niculae/Rooney not Barrowman. Niculae (according to soccerbase) 33 starts 2 sub (35) 8 goals in SPL ratio=0.22866 Rooney fom your figures has a ratio of 0.3125 Dargo is 0.4576 from your figures Backing up my point that Marius was over rated. I'd like to see figures on goals/£ spent on the player. That'll teach me to try and do stats when half asleep In regards goals/£ we actually made money on the Marius deal (although not as much as we maybe should have) whereas Barrowman/Rooney/Dargo will all have cost the club money to have them here.

Oops....needed to adjust them to remove div 1 Barrowman - 15 starts, 20 sub appearances (+ 3 sub apps for Kilmarnock), 2 goals Rooney - 43 starts, 21 sub appearances, 20 goals Dargo - 55 starts, 4 sub appearances, 27 goals You can check up the stats for yourself. Menu at the top right Team Info > Squad then use the filters to select what you want to look up.

Off topic so I apologise, but does anyone have "SPL goals per game" figures for Niculae and Rooney? Barrowman - 15 starts, 20 sub appearances (+ 3 sub apps for Kilmarnock), 2 goals Rooney - 43 starts, 21 sub appearances, 20 goals

Xausa was ok......so long as he got the ball to his feet.

Wonder if they'll sign the coppers instead?

Without a shadow of a doubt....Barrowman. He was so over-rated that he was our most expensive ever signing and delivered feck all in return.

Apart from that squirly doodle me whatsit shot he got into the press for, has he really done much else since he left?

As fans we've always asked that the club be ambitious. Maybe this is the price we have to pay for that ambition and only time will tell whether or not it's worth the cost. As much as we may disagree with the method, tinkering year on year has achieved little more than the status quo...do we just want the same thing year on year? Should we just accept that we are a lower end SPL team which occasionally gets the honour of being "the best of the rest" in a good season and relegation in a bad one? I go through phases of fear and excitement. Fear that it could all go tits up, and excitement at the prospect of Butcher getting it right and what that might deliver. Not necessarily next season, but for the longer term future of ICT. Aside from that, my biggest fear is that we as fans may lose patience too quickly if we don't see instant results at the start of the new season and we get calls for sackings in September, or something equally ridiculous.

Yeah, I know.....I was having the old argument about whether 6/2(1+2) equalled 1 or 9 argument earlier (it's 1, but I really hope Mr Bannerman thinks it's 9 as I would love to have that discussion with him ), so the subject was already in mind.

Just up on BBC, Rooney has agreed a 2 year deal - http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9480349.stm

I think 170 games is a bit excessive!!!