CaleyD

The scariest thing in all of this is that I can't help but feel that Dundee saw this coming over a year ago, or at least it was one of the options/risks on the table when they decided to try and buy the league last season. There's no way they could have thought that the financial situation they had placed the club in was going to be sustainable without promotion AND they knew they did not have the resources to repeat the exercise. Many saw this coming when the "plan" to take Div 1 last season derailed, and unfortunately I very much doubt they will be the only Scottish club to go to the wall this season. What now? If we look at recent precedent then Dundee should be relegated to the 3rd Div but that can't happen until the end of the season...in the meantime they can strip costs back to the bare bones, offload all players and take in part-timers on minimum wage whilst benefiting from Div 1 level income. Once again the fundamental flaws in the way the game operates in the country are shown up to be inadequate and unsuitable...but I don't hold out much hope of anything changing. We'll all just continue to bury our head in the sand and fool ourselves into believing it will never happen to our clubs.

He went on loan to County at the end of season 97/98 and the move was then made permanent that summer.

Martin, surely the fact they had 13 full internationals in the U21 squad shows exactly why it's all doom and gloom? It's proof positive of just how far ahead of us they are when they can produce youngsters capable of competing at such a level....and that from a population that's only about 6% that of Scotland. In contrast we have people getting excited because a small handful of our U21's look like they "might" make decent players. Not to mention the fact that we're forever looking backwards at players who are past their best to try and find answers to the problems. There's no justification for how poor we are as a football nation, only excuses....and poor ones at that.

Guys, can we please keep the petty arguments off the forum. If you have an issue with another user then take it up with them via PM or if you don't want to do that then use the report function and the Moderators will look at it....that includes any response/reply you may wish to make in regards anything including (or preceding) this post that is not related to the main topic.

Daisy Ross....Legend He was once likened to David Ginola!!!!

All part of the fun of following football and one of the main reasons why technology/video replays for refs etc should be kept well away from the sport.

Ask me again at the end of the season!!!

I'd underwrite the Supporters Trusts purchase of all available shares, be they unissued or those willing to sell on the agreement that they convert the business to a membership business model (one member, one vote). I would then take a 99 year lease from the new business for all non-football property/space at the stadium before flattening the lot and building again from scratch...with a clause that I provide all facilities required for the operation of the club (stands, changing rooms, offices etc etc). I'd move the whole stadium away from the A9 to give room for development on the West Side. All stands would be built to incorporate offices, 4 corner pods with hospitality suites/boxes and penthouse apartment at the top (North East Corner is mine). Seating levels would be raised with installation of catering facilities underneath at pitchside so people can go get food and/or drink throughout the game without missing any of the action. Disabled access/platforms at the front, middle and back of each stand so wheelchair users can sit just about anywhere they like. The North carpark would be converted to two level parking with exit/entrance ramps connected to the A9 from the upper level. South carpark would be converted into an all weather pitch for training and community use and would be served by changing facilities etc incorporated into the South Stand. I would retain the name of the Kingsmills Suite and to even things out a bit the new Sports Bar would be named the "Howden End". (IHE would be employed as quality control officer.) The club would retain all advertising rights etc around the stadium and would be free to seek stadium sponsorship for naming rights etc. I would be reluctant to throw money at the playing side of things over and above that which the business was able to sustain in it's own right....in fact I would be tempted to include (if possible) some kind of clause in my agreement to set up all of the above which states that should the club incur debts of more than X amount then all shares which I underwrote the purchase of would revert to me.

Nicky is presently Strathspey Thistles goalkeeper coach Playing for a team second bottom of the Highland League is about his level...maybe just!!!

Tell me about it. I was consoled as a child with Ginger hair by being told that "At least you'll never go grey". Not a total lie as my hair is, in fact, turning white...but I still feel cheated

Wow....can't believe our Birthdays fell on the same day again!!! What's the chances of that? Have a great one.

We would be more than happy to carry any news/information that can be provided on the Youth Teams but it has proven difficult to do in the past. Things like fixture lists were forever changing, and when we couldn't keep on top of it or were not given details of changes we had people turning up at wrong locations at wrong times and/or on wrong days etc. This led to the one or two people we had willing to go along and do match reports etc getting hacked off at having time wasted or making plans only to have to change them last minute or whatever. I don't know if the situation is still the same, but a few years back that very much seemed to be the nature of the beast with the youth leagues and not the fault of any individual or the club. It made it tough for us to keep accurate/complete records and as a result we dropped it due to it being more hassle than it was worth. However, if anyone wants to provide match reports and updates then drop TM4TJ (Our Head of Editorial) a message and we'll see what we can do about incorporating them in to the site.

I think it can be applied whether you get the ball or not. Getting the ball in a challenge doesn't automatically absolve it from not being a foul and punishable by some colour of card. I agree, getting the ball does not automatically mean a tackle/challenge is legitimate and should not result in some kind of caution...or even a red card. Leaving the foot in or unnecessarily going through a player in the tackle could just as easily warrant a red card whether they get the ball or not and could be "serious Foul Play". I just don't think Rossco's tackle falls into that category. I think a red would have been harsh for Rossco, but could quite have easily been given by the ref who does not have the benefit of looking at the incident over and over again. When you go in for that kind of challenge you are effectively flipping a coin and, as someone else pointed out, it was probably unnecessary given the position on the park and the lack of any apparent danger to us at the time Quite happy to accept that on another day the two decisions may have been reversed. Interpretation and the resulting discussions is half the attraction of football.

"Serious Foul Play", for me, would mean that the player had no intention of playing the ball and had deliberately gone after the player in the tackle.

RiG, the rules of the game were altered (again) in reference to the "tackle from behind" about 5 years ago and the rulebook no longer makes any reference to it directly. Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct Fouls and misconduct are penalised as follows: Direct free kick A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following seven offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: ? kicks or attempts to kick an opponent ? trips or attempts to trip an opponent ? jumps at an opponent ? charges an opponent ? strikes or attempts to strike an opponent ? pushes an opponent ? tackles an opponent A direct free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following three offences: ? holds an opponent ? spits at an opponent ? handles the ball deliberately (except for the goalkeeper within his own penalty area) A direct free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 ? Position of free kick). Penalty kick A penalty kick is awarded if any of the above ten offences is committed by a player inside his own penalty area, irrespective of the position of the ball, provided it is in play. Indirect free kick An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, commits any of the following four offences: ? controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession ? touches the ball again with his hands after he has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player ? touches the ball with his hands after it has been deliberately kicked to him by a team-mate ? touches the ball with his hands after he has received it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of the referee, a player: ? plays in a dangerous manner ? impedes the progress of an opponent ? prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands ? commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player The indirect free kick is taken from the place where the offence occurred (see Law 13 ? Position of free kick). Cautionable offences A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the following seven offences: ? unsporting behaviour ? dissent by word or action ? persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game ? delaying the restart of play ? failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, free kick or throw-in ? entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee?s permission ? deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee?s permission A substitute or substituted player is cautioned if he commits any of the following three offences: ? unsporting behaviour ? dissent by word or action ? delaying the restart of play Sending-off offences A player, substitute or substituted player is sent off if he commits any of the following seven offences: ? serious foul play ? violent conduct ? spitting at an opponent or any other person ? denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball (this does not apply to a goalkeeper within his own penalty area) ? denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity to an opponent moving towards the player?s goal by an offence punishable by a free kick or a penalty kick ? using offensive, insulting or abusive language and/or gestures ? receiving a second caution in the same match A player, substitute or substituted player who has been sent off must leave the vicinity of the field of play and the technical area. SOURCE: Laws of the Game 20101/11

It's Luxo from Pixar.

#47 is funny....the look of shock on the players faces as the ball levitates in front of them!!! #61 The old scarf in one ear and out the other is always a winner at parties

Looks like Paton may have been guilty of a wee bit of rucking on Hayes but it's certainly not clear cut and one of those instances where a Ref has a split second decision to make and it went for us. No idea what match/highlights those who claim Rossco had studs up were watching!!! Could have been a red on the basis of a clumsy tackle from behind, but no worse than some of the treatment Hayes got that went unpunished in any way shape or form for most of the game.

It's actually a bit of common sense from both sides. The Club, the Supporters Trust and some of the lads from that area sat down together at a meeting and worked through how they could improve the situation that existed previously. A little bit of give and take by all parties and what we witnessed today is the outcome, and long may it continue.

We were caught napping for the disallowed goal and I think it did us a favour by giving us an early wake up call. From there on in we barely put a foot wrong anywhere on the park and Aberdeen never really looked like they were going to cause us too many problems....apart from the "clogger" tactics which ultimately backfired on them and should have seen a few more cards being shown. Our back four look a lot more settled and happy alongside each other today and some beautiful link-up play out wide with the young lads Shinnie and Ross working well together and pushing us up the field regularly. Duff didn't pus forward so much, but no issue with that as it meant we were never going to get caught short at the back...especially with Duncan playing just in front of the back four and having a great game (one of my contenders for MotM). Munro and Tokely were solid, winning nearly everything in the air and dealing with whatever threatened around the area. Foran commanded the middle of the pitch with Odhiambo picking up the ball from his efforts and proving to be an effective link in getting the ball forward and supporting Rooney. Every time we went forward today I thought we were looking like we could create something and it wouldn't have taken much for us to have put 4 goals up on the board. If we can perform like that with "key" players out injured then things can only get better in the weeks to come. Some might see the International break as a good thing to allow us to get these players back but I would have preferred a chance to keep the momentum going. Special mention also to the Twelfth Man today....plenty of singing and chanting from start to finish. Just goes to show that everyone can have a great time, enjoy themselves and get right behind the team without the need to take it too far or overstep the mark and piss anyone else off. I even spotted a couple of the usual "Grumpy Old Men" standing and cheering on the team with everyone else this afternoon!!!

Yeah, it's only the erseholes like yourself that are left!!!

PMF, I'll reply in more depth later. However one point just now....when I talk about "Community Based Business Models" I'm not referring to clubs being entirely owned by fans, although they would fall in to that category. I'm talking about business models where all stakeholders have a properly structured say/hand in the running of the club. I'll point you in the direction of some reading material on the subject later tonight or over the weekend, but if you want to take a look at Football Clubs who are "Registered Associations" - FC Barcelona, Athletic Bilbao and Real Madrid being three examples off the top of my head - then you may better understand what I am on about. Incidentally UEFA very much champion the concept and theirs every chance that if football in the country wants to continue to compete participate on the larger stage they will have no choice but to change. Even our own government are looking at ways to implement changes that give fans a legislative right to "mutually owned" club status. Take a read of this for just now - http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=7298 - not sure how much it will mean to you if you are not aware of what is actually happening on the larger football political stage, but it will highlight that I am not "pissing in the wind" (yeah, throwing it back at you again...lol) and I am certainly not alone in my thoughts on what is needed to change the game for the better.

Think you would need 5000 fans at ?50 (or 500 fans at ?500) and neither would happen at ICT Typo, I meant to put 5000 @ ?50. Whilst we don't have 5000 regular fans at the moment, I don't think it would be all that difficult to achieve if things were run a bit different. Again, not a dig at anyone...ICT, like many other clubs, operate within a system that, IMO, is fundamentally flawed and one which would take a huge amount of effort and change in mindset to change. The effort and change in mindset needs to come from everyone. The ?50 per head doesn't have to come directly from a person spending more it can be done by delivering costs savings. Volunteers actually have a value and if you can get people volunteering to do more then that delivers savings. One of the biggest obstacles in getting volunteers is the "ICT are a business, they should be able to pay for these things, why should I do it". To change that you have to give back ownership or the feeling of ownership to the fans in some way. There's no one thing on it's own going to magically change the situation or make everything all wonderful overnight. It takes a bit of time and effort from everyone and for the fans are their own worst enemy as the majority of them have their heads buried in the sand and/or waste lots of effort spouting off and very little effort actually doing anything to make it better....they are happy enough to sit back and wait for the next sugar daddy or look to others to take care of it.

PMF, if I am just "pissing in the wind" then how do you explain the 90+ instances of administration among football clubs in the last 20 years and it being a once in a blue moon phenomenon prior to that? Should we just continue as we are? What makes the UK so different from other countries who do have legislation/rules in place for business models pertaining to the running of football clubs, not only at association level but at government level as well? Is it pure coincidence that these countries rank amongst the best in the world? The UK is in the minority in terms of allowing football clubs to operate under the kinds of private business models they do....and that's what attracts so many of the "wrong" kinds of people to get involved in buying clubs here. They do so either for personal benefit or as a mere play thing/status symbol. Even when "benefactors" have good intentions their is insufficient controls in place to stop things getting out of hand and as we have witnessed time and again those good intentions can quickly disappear when the money doesn't buy the success they hoped for or other factors put an end to the constant investment. I've read endless reports and papers on the subject. I've spoken to people from other clubs in Europe (and not talking about a fan in the street) and they find the whole football setup in this country to be extremely bizarre. The concept of fans selling out their club to individuals or groups of individuals in the way we do is totally alien to them. ?250,000 a year of new, no strings attached investment in to ICT every year would be a huge boost to us, but you're going to be hard pushed to find any single investor willing to do that long term. What you can do though is create a situation whereby your fans are more willing to spend on/with the club. Sounds a bit pie in the sky, but all you need is 500 fans spending ?50 more a season. Fans will only spend more if they are getting what they want...they will only get what they want if they have a say in what is being provided....they will only get a say if we have a more open membership/community based setup that allows them a real voice. If these "benefactors" were really only interested in what's best for the club then why do they insist on having control? "Protect their investment" is one argument, but what about protecting the investment of the thousands of fans who invest in the club week in, week out for years on end? If the power to make decisions is to be determined by the amount of money a person has put in to the club then no matter which way you cut it, the fans put in far more than anyone else.

PMF, I am not calling into question the actions/motives of the Board at ICT or any other club, nor am I questioning the motives of any benefactors. It's the system/models that they operate under which are fundamentally flawed and not conducive with running financially stable/viable football clubs in the long term....90+ cases of clubs in the UK going into administration in the past 20 years is testament to that.