CaleyD

I could be wrong....it happened once before...but I was writing it down as it was said and I have them as saying Morais to come in at the back. Maybe they are the ones who got it wrong!!!

4-5-1, some things never change!!!! Fraser in for Esson, Morais and Djebi-Zadi come in at the back and Mihadjuk comes into the midfield.

Could be a very interesting line-up today and hard to pre-empt whether Brewster will throw in new guys in a hope that it scuppers any plans Partick might have formed from watching us recently or if he'll go with the players he knows in a hope that the cup atmosphere lifts them enough to get the result.

didnt stop nicalue Wasn't a problem for Niculae as he could speak English. I'm just wondering if these guys being here has anything to do with the relationship Sutherland struck up with Romanov a while back....I can still remember when the rumours of us doing dealings with him (Romanov) were doing the rounds after he'd been a guest of Sutherland at the stadium. I still have some reservations that we're not seeing any signs of picking up anyone other than out of contract players and free cast-offs (hardly conducive with substantial investment) but happy to give players the chance to prove themselves.

According to some reports on P & B, Hamilton have the worst pies in the league!!!

Let's not have this thread turn into a personal slanging match.

What are you on about? The Trust made the purposes of the meeting very clear, it was to consult the membership, not raise support for their personal views. Had you actually bothered to attend the meeting then you would have seen for yourself that at no point did DJS try and lead or encourage any lynch mob. You are also well wide of the mark in suggesting a significant number at the meeting were in support of the manager. As I said elsewhere, the only differing opinions were among those who thought he should go now and those who thought he should have gone weeks ago or think that the disruption going in to the next two games would do more harm than good and it should be revisited after that time. Other issues were raised as evidence of the fact that the malaise seems to be rife throughout the club and how it seems to have become the culture at the stadium and it was suggested that this lack of ambition and progress in other areas has now spread into the playing side. The average attendance is down by between 9% and 10% (450 to 500 per game). For the first season since this club were formed a large percentage of fans have taken to their feet and left early on several occasions. Half Season Ticket sales are down and ticket sales for the forthcoming cup match are, I believe, the lowest we've ever seen for a home cup fixture. Whilst we can only take a count of those people who choose to partake in polls etc, it is naive in the extreme to assume that those not taking part are in support of Brewster. Any poll, be it on here or elsewhere, has shown that in excess of 80% of participants want him gone. If so many others are to be assumed to be as passionate about keeping Brewster as those who want to see him gone, then why did they not attend to give balance, or indeed swing things in favour of their views. If the club think so many are in favour, then I call for them to issue voting slips to everyone who comes through the turnstiles at the next home game asking them if Brewster should stay or go, or give me permission and I'll do it to save them the work/cost. Far easier for them to bury their head in the sand, twist the figures and live in blisful ignorance assuming that those who don't shout and scream are on their side.....easier perhaps, but a very very dangerous assumption. For someone who is so hell bent on keeping the facts straight you have a terrible habit of plucking figures out of the air and making assumptions about people. And if all else fails we can always resort to the Internet Hardman routine and start throwing about threats!!!

There's a couple of people with a strange gait, but no dodgy walks.

Was talking to someone earlier who suggested that Hibs had been set to do a deal with Livingston to put Gatheussi on loan there and it had come as a shock/surprise to Hibs that ICT were in fact interested in both him and Morais. The reason being, it's not possible for a club to take 2 players over 21 on loan at any one time...... From the SPL Handbook.... Having gone back and checked the content of the article on the official site it says nothing about this being a loan deal...which makes sense when you look at the rules. That means we must be taking on the full contract (and assuming wages too) for one or both of these players. That means that we are, in effect, picking up the scraps from Hibs as opposed to them being loaned out to gain experience before going back there.

The subject of giving wider support was raised and quickly quashed. I think it's fair to say that the it wasn't felt possible that the meeting could extend it's words of support beyond that which is mentioned in the statement.

He'd probably be looking for a wage equivalent to, or more, than the combined total of those you mention Marty.

Yes, that does seem a bit strange!!!

Q. What has David Proctor got in common with Javier Mascherano? A. Not a lot. But both were granted permission to play for a 3rd club in one season. I think it can happen if both FIFA and the league in question approve it. The decision to allow it for Proctor was due to the fact that he'd only played one reserve match for ICT before his move and hadn't played a first team competitive match. Not sure about the other case you mention, but I'd imagine their would have to be extenuating circumstances.

That's a very good point. Would not have been an issue had he not played for Hearts last night, but I think the fact he did might very well scupper this move. Off to dig out the rulebook to check.

It's only January....I wouldn't be expecting them till at least late October!!!

I'm not convinced by the calibre of these lads, but they do add a bit of much needed depth and I guess we just have to wait and see if they can do a job for us.

I share your fears, which is why I raised the point at the end about what should be done if they do choose to ignore us. I didn't want the trust to be making threats or giving ultimatums (yet) as that can often be counter productive, but I think their was definite support in the room for stronger action should the club shrug off the request in the agreed statement which was produced. Further to some of the comments above, I think some have confused the "now's not the time" argument with a "support for Brewster" argument. I don't think that was the case at all and a large portion of those who don't think he should be sacked right now were of a mind that it should have happened weeks ago, or needs to wait till after the next two games. Some statements from the floor were, IMO, baffling...that's always the case at these meetings. Personally I think some of the things said were intentionally trying to draw specific answers/responses, and I was actually glad nobody fell into the trap on a couple of occasions because it could have dragged the meeting off in the wrong direction or twisted it to make it look like it was something it wasn't. Having talked to a few people during the break and after the meeting I don't think many have changed their opinion that Brewster needs to go, but I think there's an uneasy agreement that for it to happen right this minute would possibly do more harm than good. I'm not certain I agree with waiting any longer, but I do understand the argument. I'm sure the subject will be raised again at the Trust AGM on the 22nd regardless of what happens against Partick and Hamilton, so opportunity will exist for further discussion then.

My take on tonight's events.......... I wouldn't underestimate the strength of feeling among those at the meeting this evening, nor the desire to see a change of Manager. From what the majority of people were saying at the meeting I was left feeling that the general consensus among many is that the problems being seen on the pitch are a reflection of problems which exist in just about every area and at every level throughout the club. After everyone had a chance to get their feelings aired and we entered into further discussion opinions seemed to be split between those who felt that now was either too early or too late to be putting a new manager in place....loosely based around views that disruption of this nature could further damage confidence going into two vital matches against Partick and Hamilton, and those who felt that enough was enough. I think the actions/statement which came from the meeting met the middle ground on those opinions and were the right ones given the circumstances. As much as we might doubt the Board...and a lot do...we have to believe (give them the benefit of the doubt) that they have some kind of plan/contingency in place and the question as to what exactly that is has been asked. As has been said earlier in this thread, the ball is now firmly in the clubs court and it is my opinion/belief that should the club fail to respond to the statement, or fail to deliver improvements (not just on the park) then the subject will be raised again at the Trust AGM and I don't think the mood will allow suggestions of such a lenient nature. I also think it's important that the outcome of this meeting is not seen as a slight on anyone who has been protesting, either on here, through letters/emails to the club or at games. It is the actions of such fans that has brought the discontent of the wider fan base to the fore and thus served a purpose. The Meeting tonight has called for all fans to get behind the TEAM for the important upcoming fixtures and I am confident that by setting aside our grievances for now, it will not be viewed as a stand down or softening of opinion on the part of the fans, certainly not by those who were in attendance tonight and I, personally, would urge the club not to view it as such either.

For a start I would not consider either to be "experienced" (that not suppose to be what we're looking for?), certainly not recently....... Morais hasn't kicked a ball in a competitive match since the end of August 2008 and I'm also a little concerned by this article - Clicky Clicky - last thing we need right not is someone who is likely to cause more disruption. Gathuessi hasn't kicked a ball in a competitive match since May 2008 and is nicknamed "Hong Kong Thierry" due to his aggressive playing style which is reflected in his disciplinary record. Sounds like Hibs are just looking to get some dead wood off the payroll to me.

Black is/was on nothing like ?1200/week.

If we didn't have Wood, who I see as being a very similar type of player to Bayne, then I might agree....but not point bringing in another workhorse up front when what we need is someone to stick the ball away. Incidentally, I think we may already have that player in Rooney, so it baffles me as to why he doesn't get more time on the pitch, and when he is given time he's not given someone to support him. Let's face it, it doesn't matter who we bring in in the transfer window, if they're not getting service/support then it will simply be another striker doing feck all.

Esson/Fraser Tokely - Duff - Munro - McBain Cowie - - - - Black - - - - Imrie Wood - - - Vigurs Rooney Would have preferred Cowie in where Wood is, but we'd then be struggling for a suitable player to play on the right.

For years Tokely and Wilson worked that right side of the park better than anyone....and I think the absence of Wilson is why some might be getting the impression that Tokely has lost his edge. For want of a better description, they were a well oiled machine and it was as if they could read each others minds at times when they were overlapping etc. Wilson was also aware that Tokely wasn't the fastest at recovering and not only would he drop back to cover, but he had enough in his game to be able to effectively fill the role for short periods. We also had the added benefit of a Dods/Mann who could read a game and spread a back 3 and keep it solid if needed. With the best will in the world there's not a player exists who doesn't have a weakness in their game, certainly not players that are within our current reach and the above is a good example of us having had a squad (and manager) who knew each others strengths and weaknesses and played to/covered them. As things are, we seem to be trying to get the players to fit a system, instead of getting a system to fit the players.

The team, as is, playing to their potential would, IMO, be enough to see us safe this season. However, if we are to progress then we do need to be looking to strengthen, and constantly strengthen in almost all areas of the park. Be that replacing players already there or bringing in guys who are constantly challenging them for their start....I include the younger guys coming through in that second group. What is needed first is someone or something to get us playing to our potential so the team and players can be properly (and fairly) assessed. Not saying we should ignore the transfer window, but the last thing we need to be doing is signing players for the sake of it because Brewster is under a bit of pressure and has to be seen to be doing something. In the long run that will simply do more harm than good.

Moved this back onto the main ICT forum. As said above, this is fact and McGhee himself gave an interview saying that they were after Cowie on the STV news.