CaleyD

Not surprised that Marius is not down to feature as he's only just got back and will have had one day training with the squad at most.....certainly wouldn't read anything more sinister into it if he doesn't appear in either game. Not sure about this idea of splitting the squad down the middle though....OK, so half a Rossco might still be a formidable sight, but Black's small enough without cutting him in two.

I used to think that a club showing interest meant they had put an offer on the table but over the years I have come to learn that this is far from the case, especially where the press are involved, and quite often they will create their own "interest" story by asking a question during press conferences and interviews. In the case of Marius it would seem that the club have had two offers which have been rejected, a number of enquires as to his availability and a healthy dose of press generated "interest" stories. I don't actually think the club know whether they want to sell him or not, either that or opinion is split and we have some people trying to talk the player up and inviting offers to try and get a figure which will sway opinion in favour of selling. Just how available he is seems to depend very much on which "source" from within the club information is coming from. One thing I am certain of, and that's the club are playing a very stupid/dangerous game by trying to play everyone off against each other. They might get lucky and it all works out, but if there's going to be a loser then it can only be ICT.

The difference being....Rossco was actually missing when opponents utilised gaps on the right whereas Hastings was there but was no more effective than an AWOL Rossco. I'll qualify that by saying that I don't think he (Hastings) had his worst season ever, but it wasn't as good as the previous year and he'll need to get the finger out this season if he wants to keep his place. something he is more than capable of doing.

I'd be looking at the older end of the Keeper Market for a third keeper. Someone perhaps coming towards the end of their playing days with a couple of good seasons left in them who is experienced enough to be pushing Fraser for his place, but also someone he (and other GKs at the club) can learn from. I like Fraser, but he's still on his upward curve and I wouldn't necessarily be wanting to push him so much with a younger competitor that he thinks the club are actively seeking to replace him long term and he starts to look elsewhere. While we're at it we should get Fraser signed on a minimum 4 year contract. The next couple of seasons could be big for him and we need to keep the wolves from the door or force them to pay us top money.

How many youngsters/inexperienced players do you want us to be starting with Alex? As is often the case the balance is normally somewhere in the middle, but the way your going on we should be starting with our U19's. 20 minutes in to a game and one of our players gets crocked....what situation would you rather see? Forced to play an inexperienced youth for 70 minutes or have the option to put on someone a little more seasoned? Yes, it's good to give these lads 10 or 20 minutes at the end of a game but it's too much to drop them into the above scenario and it could end up doing more harm than good. After they've had that experience and shown they can keep their cool and play under the pressure then you start to consider them for more time on the pitch. Unfortunately we're in the situation whereby we have a manager who is not only shy of making changes, but he seems clueless as to what the changes should be. We had ample opportunity to give some of these lads time on the park last season but they were lucky to get 5 minutes here or there....that, IMO, is what's holding them back and nothing to do with the desire among the fans to see more experienced players available to bolster the squad.

My big question is, what does the need for having Disclosure Forms completed every 3 years as opposed to 5 years have to do with the standard of coaching these kids are receiving? Had it been a lack of facilities, equipment or personnel then you could perhaps understand it. Aside from that, if the SFA were to stick so rigidly to all their rules then most of the teams in Scotland would have been thrown out of top level football long ago. In fact, I'd bet money that there's not a single team in Scotland doesn't return their Football Licensing Audit forms each year without them falling short on one requirement or another...asking for dispensation and being granted it, and on things more important than renewing a form which is legally valid for a further 2 years.

Some nations just can't see beyond the possibility of a bit of silverware and respect the "spirit of the games" IMO. Yes it's difficult to exclude professionals in this day and age (especially footballers), and I think the IOC have done what they can by making it an U23 tournament, but the nations themselves really shouldn't be including big name players. Some of these players should never be asked in the first place, clubs should be discouraging it and the players themselves should be rejecting invitations. Theirs ample opportunity for the professionals to ply their trade on the international stage, so step back and give the rest a chance would be my message.

Think Brewster is right to be leaving his decision till the team have trained a bit more together. I don't think Munro was a natural leader and struggled a little to start with both in his own performance and the leadership role last season. Brewster also seems to be gearing up for something "different" this season with the squad and it may well prove that someone else is better placed/suited to carrying out those wishes on the park and someone else may rise to that challenge in the run up to the start. He should, and I'm sure he does, have one or two people in mind and they should be "tested" in the role during pre-season friendlies etc.

I agree with Caley100 on this and we seem to be doing the same thing up front in terms of "make do". The only thing I would add is that with Brewsters fascination for playing players out of position we never know who we might see playing where. McAllister as a Centre Back anyone? :015:

Well done on keeping the prices down. Makes it possible for those wanting to make the journey to do so for much the same as it would cost to go to an SPL away game.

My point is not that Savage would have disagreed with the selling of Marius, but the fact that the investment was, IMO, made with the intention of pushing the club forwards on the park and in terms of the type of players we would/should (depending on your view) be targeting. Again it all comes back to PR....if the club were saying that they were looking to sell with a view to signing a couple of players of a better calibre/pedigree than normal, then it wouldn't be a case of "short changing" investors as the deal would be moving things forward, but as it is we're signing players who have either already failed to make an impact at this level or aren't even tested at anything near this level. I fully appreciate that we've done well from such signings in the past, but it's foolish to think our luck will continue in that regard and I think we're at a stage (and have been for a couple of years) where we should be spending just a little more to reduce the risk. If we sell Marius at the last minute and don't bring anyone else in then, IMO, we've taken a step backwards. OK, so we might have a little more cash in the bank, but that's not going to help in the slightest until we reach the January Transfer Window and the damage could already be done by then. If Marius ends up leaving then as things stand we've got nobody up front with enough/relevant experience to pull us through if things do look to be going pear shaped. The principles are the same in business, if a company is going through an important transition phase then they want people with experience overseeing it, not someone fresh out of University with a degree who might have potential but doesn't know the business. It's not that I don't want to see the likes of Barrowman, Woods, McAllister all get their chance and succeed, I just want to know that they are working with people who are a bit more experienced and used to the pressures who can, if need be, carry us through should things not go entirely to plan. On the subject of losing him for free...I agree that it has to be a serious consideration, but we're getting to the stage where the club must make up their mind one way or another, all we seem to be witnessing at the moment is dithering and to be 4 weeks away from the start of the season and only now getting down to talks about the future of a key player is ludicrous....we've been stung often enough in the past by doing the exact same thing and still we don't seem to have learned. If we don't sell him and haven't offered him a new contract then we're left with a player who knows he's not wanted by the club. What kind of message are they sending out by saying....we'd like to cash in on you, but if we don't would you be so kind as to sign an extended deal!!! In my book that's called "taking the p!ss" and if it was me I'd tell them to shove it....in fact, the clubs (non) handling of things to date from what I can see could well mean it's at that stage already. P.S. Don't be expecting any news on these talks tonight or tomorrow as my understanding is that he's not even back in the country yet, let alone available to attend talks at the club. What I just did there was manage people's expectations instead of allowing fans to get all irate in the morning when we've had no news. I know it's something the club should be doing, but I'm happy to assist where I can :004:

Some people still buying into the Spin that Niculae is earning 4 times anyone else in the squad then? Thought that Myth had been well and truly put to bed. Aside from the whole footballing thing and whether we should or should not keep Marius and under what circumstances, can you imagine what this whole nonsense is doing for our reputation in terms of attracting investment to the club? We had a businessman invest the money to bring this player to ICT for 2 years....bought and paid for in full. If I was said businessman I would be feeling somewhat cheated right now, especially as the club were replacing my investment with 2nd Div Strikers and practically unheard of French defenders. If I was someone considering an investment, I'm sure I wouldn't be believing a word I was told about how my money would be spent or trusting the club to follow through. Also, take into consideration that in the last year we've removed some of the clubs top earning and potentially most valuable players...likes of John Rankin being moved on for a fraction of his real value. Now we look like we are **** bent on getting rid of someone who currently adds most value to the business. In any other industry this kind of asset stripping and cost reduction would have shareholders running for the door and company stock would be going through the floor...yet somehow in our case we have people saying it's the best thing for us to be doing!!! Has the world of ICT gone totally mad? So, you see, the implications of what the club are doing run far deeper than just our opinions about how good/bad a team we end up feeling and their recent actions could have more long term effects than just a bad season. It's getting to the stage where people aren't going to want to invest in the club....but perhaps that is no accident, and as I've said before, it's all just about paving the way for Mr Sutherland to make another move for that all magic controlling share in ICT.

Whilst I agree with what you say, it's not really the discussion we're having here. I don't think too many fans would argue that two top leagues of 16 is the way forward, but it's not going to happen. Firstly it reduces the number of games by too much and secondly it would mean clubs having to give up a couple of home fixtures against the OF which are big earners for them. Whilst you might be able to convince clubs to do one or the other, your never going to be able to persuade them to do both....and that's what a 16 team SPL would represent. Reduced revenue from the loss of 4 home fixtures, 2 of which would be against the OF = too big a hole in the pocket, and that's the only language club boards speak these days. That leaves 3 options. 1. We leave things as they are. 2. We increase SPL membership and have 2 smaller leagues. 3. We increase SPL membership and have 1 larger league of 18/20 teams. Option 1 Pros - Lots more money for everyone Cons - Boredom of playing the same few teams every season and watching crowd sizes dwindling. Option 2 Pros - A wider distribution of money coming in to the game, whilst not expecting existing member clubs to take a cut. Cons - See Option 1. It may take a season or two for teams near the bottom to catch up. Option 3 Pros - See Option 2. Wider variety of opponents reduces boredom and could very likely increase attendnaces over the season. No reduction in number of fixtures. Cons - It might take teams nearer the bottom a season or two to "catch up" We've already seen Gold in the papers trying to breathe new life into the idea of the SPL2 and if I was a betting man I would say that whilst they were sitting down with Setanta to discuss this improved deal they gave them certain assurances that they would look to increase the SPL membership to give Setanta a wider audience and more punters to fleece. If that's true, then something is going to happen in the next couple of seasons. What scares me is that it's more likely that we'll end up with 2 leagues of 10 as the "big" clubs will want the best of both worlds....they'll want the additional revenue from the improved deal and they'll want to maintain those lucrative OF home fixtures, and no more so than for the twins of darkness who benefit most from it. Setanta aren't just handing over twice the money for nothing and there's still a twist to come in regards to the agreement IMO. If it's the decision that we go with 2 leagues of 10 then I for one can't see me still maintaining much interest in going to the football every week/fortnight as I already find the prospect of seeing the same teams so often extremely tedious. Prices already send fans looking for alternative Saturday entertainment, yet clubs seem intent on giving people even more reasons/excuses to spend their hard earned elsewhere......it's madness.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/s...v_1/7491711.stm A bit harsh on all 3 teams involved IMO, especially as it appears to have been no more than an administrative issue for everyone. At the end of the day it's unlikely the teams will suffer greatly but it could make all the difference to the youngsters involved, especially if, as stated, we see a teams entire youth system ending up being scraped as a result. What I find so strange is that the SFA felt the need to call a meeting of the emergency committee to rush the decision through instead of bringing it to the attention of the clubs and allowing them the time to rectify the matter.

Perhaps to begin with, but you'd have similar problems in a 10 team SPL2 until teams found their feet and started to utilise the additional funding made available from being part of the setup. Livingston, Partick, Dundee, Dunfermline & St Johnstone have all been in the top league in the last 10 years and wouldn't be out of their depth there now IMO. That leaves just 3 additional teams to find and I don't think the likes of QotS or Morton would be too far behind with a little financial boost. ICT were in no great shape until we made it to the SPL, and there's no reason it couldn't be the same for others.

Two leagues of 10 makes no sense whatsoever from a footballing point of view and the only reason I could see for it would be to preserve the 4 matches against the OF for those in the top league. i.e. a decision based on keeping the richer clubs rich and the poorer clubs at arms length. We currently play 38 league games a season....so if they were thinking about increasing the SPL to 20 member clubs it would make far more sense to just go with a straight league of 20 and play everyone twice. If they did it that way and maintained the current method for dividing up the money from Sponsorship/TV - 48% divided equally with the rest split depending on league finish - then not only would the team in 20th place receive an amount slightly more than 12th place get at the moment, but everyone else would be better off based on current league position.....in fact you'd have to slide more than 7 places to be worse off. So, you immediately have a financial offset for those clubs scared of losing revenue from not having 2 extra OF matches at home, negating that argument. Plus I honestly believe that playing a wider variety of teams in a season would add to attendances. Not only would everyone in the SPL be better off (including new teams) but if (and I know it's a big if) the SFL teams could maintain current income streams then they would also all be better off....reducing the gap between the bottom of the SPL and the top of the SFL.....although it would likely take a couple of season for what would effectively be 2nd Div teams to play catch-up on the bottom of the newly expanded SPL......and it may also depend largely on whether or not they could maintain current income streams.

That's the attitude the club have too. It's easy to dismiss it as "everyone's just moaning", but it hasn't always been the case and certainly not at the level we are seeing these days. Your an intelligent man, perhaps instead of just labelling those who have criticisms as "Whingers" you could offer an alternative reason as to why more and more people are finding cause for complaint? Or are you so far within the fold of the club that you can no longer see things from the outside? I'm not talking about the club phoning people to chase season ticket sales, that makes sense to me, I'm talking about why season ticket sales look to be taking a drop.

Whilst you'll never please all the people all the time I don't think I've ever sensed such widespread dissatisfaction among the ICT support at the way things are being run...both on and off the field. You only have to look around the forums to see it. The scariest thing though is that not only are we seeing little effort to reverse the trend, but the club seems to have it's head well and truly buried in the sand and the thoughts and feelings of the fans are far too easily dismissed. It's either that or those steering the ship haven't got a clue how to put it right and improve things....either way it doesn't look good.

Some people have a genuine concern that the player may not come up to scratch and some would like to have seen someone who is more of a known quantity come in....myself included. However, Zadi is now an ICT player and as such has my 100% support.....regardless of what I think his abilities may or may not be. Support isn't something he should have to earn, it comes the moment he pulls on the ICT shirt. He may or may not prove to be a good acquisition, but so long as he's giving his all when on the park then he'll have my support. I'm as nervous as the next fan about our prospects for the coming season, but I try to hold faith in the fact that ICT have always been bigger than the sum of their parts and that somehow we'll survive despite the lack of proven players coming in to fill the gaps.

Robbo has, by all accounts, said that this is a good signing for ICT. He obviously rated the player when he signed him for C*unty, and from what I understand he would have still been a C*unty player had it not been for them making financial cutbacks which meant they couldn't afford to extend his contract. Knowing our history for signing the best that C*unty have to offer then it may well have been the case that had Zadi signed an extended deal then he would have been an ICT player before now :023:

Well done Craig, and a big thanks to everyone who donated, especially Alex for putting the shirt up for grabs. We raised ?80 towards the HM.

My German isn't the best, but I'm sure that I saw something somewhere on one of the sites I read that he was playing as a Central Defender for SC Verl. I'd be surprised (ok, not really that surprised) if he was signed with the intention of playing him at Left Back, especially as we have far more need for a solid Central Defender and we already have McBain who proved more than capable of covering at Left Back. It's either that or Brewster intends trying out Hastings as a Central Defender given how well he's done in that position whilst playing for Canada!!!

This cash will only serve to screw up the game in Scotland even more than it is now because those with the power to "do good" with it will only have self interest in mind. As much as I would love to see a top league of 16 or 18 teams you can bet we're more likely to see an SPL1 & 2 with 10 teams in each.

Yeah, because it's like they would be identical players vying for the same position and everything!!!! :tic01:

I'm looking forward to seeing Zadi in action and have a good feeling about this signing. His size will give the back four a bit more of a presence and by all accounts he's got a bit of pace as well. However, it's not a signing that does anything to settle my nerves about how we will perform as a team next season. We're no strangers to taking a punt on a player, but it's always been the odd player coming in to a squad who all know each other well. For various reasons we don't have that as much any more and we seem to be pinning our hopes on the potential of players which are very much an unknown quantity at this level.