CaleyD

The figures I did were based on the split of an assumed pot...which I subsequently discovered was more than a little ambitious. As a result I would be revising my estimates more into the ?600k to ?700k kinda region.

I wonder how many Samoans we've got over on trial?

I'll be there. Hoping for a good match and think we'll see it. ICT have nothing to lose and should go all out attack. Hamilton have everything to gain and should be going all out for the win. Wouldn't be overly upset to see Hamilton secure safety at St Mirrens expense, so long as the game is entertaining.

Unfortunately any review would concentrate entirely on what Duncan did and not why he did it and whilst I don't think it merited a Red Card I think there's enough there for them to uphold the decision. Either way, if Butcher had intended to give Duncan a run out in either of the last two games then I think it would justify the ?1000 for the appeal, if for no other reason that to delay the sanction and allow him the opportunity to leave the field after his final game in a manner which better reflects the service he has given the club.

Some may find it hard to believe but apparently Butcher has had somewhere in the region of 300 players CV's sent to him from legitimate sources...in other words, not the kind of e.mails/messages we sometimes see coming to the site e.mail from some weird and wonderful corners of the globe. As there's no possible way he could be familiar with or get personal references for all of them, then it would make sense to weed out those who are serious by seeing if they are willing to turn up here for a trial....and then further narrowing the field by getting to see if they can even kick a ball. Don't imagine for a second that this is us just starting the hunt for new players, but if there's so much interest from players in coming here then it does no harm to get them along to see if there's any more names to add to the list that Butcher already has.

We just think it's more exciting because there's this artificial upper limit created for us to strive for. The reality is, we've got feck all left to play for this season. We can't be caught in 7th place and we can't climb any further up the table and gain any prestige or additional money. With finances being so tight it would be worth our while sending out all the youths and saving ourselves a few quid on appearance and goal bonuses.

From the SFA Handbook.... ICT may well have a case based on the fact that as he was being held by the throat then his reaction was self defence and not violent conduct.

A straight red cards is the only card you can appeal.

If it's the weekend before then I might just be able to make the trip down and will try to squeeze in (not in to before some cnut makes a smart comment) both games.

Just be glad Big Stu wasn't there as well.....

If we appeal the red card then the penalty is set aside until it can be reviewed by the relevant panel. Given our games are Wed then Sat it's unlikely that the panel would meet before then and he could play both games. (Possibly) Good for us, bad for Duncan as he'll then have to server the suspension next season if he's still playing in Scotland.

Are we talking about the fantastically wonderful ref that booked Sutherland as he hobbled off the pitch?

Will have to send the Bristol contingency of the Johnstone clan along to support them in my place.

Would seem the "threats" are that if a 10 Team SPL is not approved then they'll form a break-away 10 team league (positioned above the SPL) and those against the idea won't be invited to join

Going by the number of red dots, I'm guessing it was lost on everyone else

Given that his name is Kenny Lego Gillet then it was either "the best a man can get" or "det bedste er ikke for godt" (only the best is good enough) :biggrin:

Scotty's right here. It's not as if anythings hidden on the this forum and even us old guys are permitted to hold different pints of view - just because I don't agree with Caley D on this one doesn't mean that I dislike him. I might not get the chance to bring it up with him at a game because that's what I'm there to watch. I can, however discuss it here to my hearts content. As for everyone standing, er, no. What would happen is that we would be ejected en masse because we don't have sufficient numbers to act in the same manner as the OF. And even if we could, would we want to? Mines a Guiness, thanks for the offer!!! You're spot on Davie, I've had my share (some may say more than my share) of disagreements with people over the years and, with one exception, I'd still happily spend time in the company of these people, partake in some serious chat and still hope to get the craic with them as well.

I'm the wee guy on the left...feel free to come and say hi any time you like.

I see today that Thompson has said in an interview that the clubs opposing the 10 Team SPL have been receiving threats from other clubs for refusing to conform. He didn't say who or how, but I imagine it will come out at some point in time.

I suspect I may be wasting my breath, but you're totally missing the point. You've said it yourself, you like to jump about...the rules say you are not allowed. Whether you agree with the rules or not, if you are asked to stop and you refuse and/or give back chat then you are antagonising the situation and you CAN NOT WIN that argument in that situation. It doesn't matter how many other people are standing, where they are standing or who they support....you are in the wrong and the fact they are also in the wrong and just so happen to be getting away with it does not suddenly make you right. It might not be fair, but lots of things in life are like that and maybe with age you'll come to realise it. Like it or not, we live in a society governed by rules and regulations...and there's plenty of them which people do not agree with. If you choose to fight that by going out of your way to break the rules to make your point then you have to accept the consequences and, when your breaking of the rules starts to impact on others you have to accept the criticism that comes from that as well. I've not once said I agree with the rules or the actions of the stewards, what I am saying is that your actions should not be allowed to spoil things for others. When stewards are wading in because you are not adhering to the rules (you have admitted you don't) then that interferes with the enjoyment of the game for others....what gives you that right? Have you even stopped for so much as a second to consider other people or is it a simple case of "we're enjoying ourselves, screw everyone else"? I bet you're the kind of person that likes to play music full blast at all hours of the day and are of the opinion that if the neighbours don't like it then they should move? I'll quite happily back any campaign to get rid of the "you must sit" rule, and I have (and will again) go to bat for anyone I think has been unjustly treated. What I won't do is give any backing to those such as yourself who think they can do as they please with impunity...regardless of whether I agree with the rules being breached or not. I don't want to see you guys being ejected or banned from games, but if your actions are causing problems and spoiling things for others then I'd rather see you turfed than them stop attending games. I'm all for creating atmosphere, I'm all for having a bit of craic and I don't even mind the swearing or slightly tasteless songs/chants (within reason)....I have/do partake of such things myself at games. I'll stand at games when/where I think I can get away with it, but if asked to sit then I do so....not because I think I should, but because I know trying to argue is a fruitless task. At the end of the day, the choice is yours. But please not have the "poor wee innocents" routine, especially not when you've openly admitted to breaking the rules and being of the opinion that if others don't like it then it's their tough.

The best a man can get.

GJ, That is precisely the thing I am talking about when I say the actions of the few screw things up for the many. When the stewards/safety officer or whoever has been wound up or pushed so far that they then implement a zero tolerance reaction then "innocents" are doubtless going to be caught in the cross-fire.

OCG, ICT have been working a good bit on fan/steward relations and I know that they regularly speak to both personally. This has resulted in the more experienced/better suited stewards being deployed in areas where they are most effective (both in dealing with and issues and preventing them in the first place). It also means that the fans who like to be a bit more animated etc at the games are better educated in terms of where the lines are and what is and is not acceptable. This is/was something that was instigated by the Supporters Trust, who also meet regularly with the club and attend the above meetings, to raise and discuss any wider issues that have come to their attention. Not saying it's perfect, but in terms of communication things are certainly moving in the right direction and (hope I'm not tempting fate) we now see far fewer complaints about the stewarding situation at TCS. Maybe, given the improved relationship here, it might be an idea for the Club/Supporters Trust to have a couple of our own Stewards attend some away games as independent observers and similar discussions could be held with the Away Fans having the problems as has been had with the home fans. As the observers would be qualified in the profession then any communication to away clubs that resulted from this would perhaps carry a bit more weight.

That doesn't work either due to the fact that different clubs have different numbers of fans and the bigger teams could easily hijack the vote.

Hate to burst your bubble, but the winner is picked by a panel and you only win if you pick the same as them and end up in the draw.