CaleyD

People thought ICT were taking the proverbial when we said we'd put up the 2 new stands and be back in Inverness half way through the season!!!! Anyways, Gretna have till 31st March to have plans in place should they need them and if Hamilton do win the 1st then that'll be a whole other can of worms.

It's not true that they have "done nothing". They have plans in place for an upgrade to Raydale and they have also submitted outline plans to the SPL for the new eco-stadium and asked for an extension to development time in order for them to pursue that option.....they have done all these things in a timely fashion. As I said above...Any team in Gretna's position is not going to start building work when faced with a very real chance of relegation. ICT left it till the last minutes and Falkirk sailed close to the wind and ended up using temporary seating....what Gretna are doing is no different. It's Gretna this season, but it will be someone else in another couple of seasons and someone else after that. Whichever way you spin it the problems are brought about by needless stadia criteria and the only way to put an end to it is to scrap the minimum covered seats figure and allow clubs to develop grounds to what they see as their requirements. In fact, if I'm right then do Hamilton not only have 5300 seats? What's happening if they get promoted....why haven't we heard them campaigning and why is nobody on their case?

The wording is as follows........ Seating All SPL clubs must have, by no later than March 31 preceding any season and for the whole of that season, a stadium with no less than 6,000 covered seats for spectators. Ground Share If a club intends to "ground share" or occupy a ground other than one owned by the club concerned, then such an arrangement requires the approval of the Board of the SPL. Nowhere within any of the current documentation/handbook etc can I find any reference to a ground share being restricted to a single season. Even if a time limit did exist for ground sharing, the SPL would have a very hard time defending a case for a second season of ground sharing. If Gretna were to get agreement from Motherwell again, then on what basis could they defend a decision that says it was ok last season, but not this season? After all, the situation would be exactly the same and a "because we said so" argument would be laughed out of court. Granted, problems could and probably would arise if the team coming up the following season needed to ground share, and on that basis priority would have to be given to the promoted team. I still can't get my head around why some people think it is ok for them to ground share this season but it wouldn't be next season, it's not like it has any negative effect on anyone...certainly no more so than it might have done this season. Scarlet....your post could have been written by a Partick Thistle Fan back in 2004 as those are the exact same arguments as they used to try and prevent us getting access to the SPL.

:015: - That has to be post of the year so far...how I would love to see the Courier quote that one in the Fan Mail section

For those in need of a footie fix..... Clach are at home to Nairn County today and the pitch got the all clear this morning. Kick-Off 3pm

As I said above, the rules do not say you cannot ground share for more than one season and if Gretna were to manage to claw themselves back above the relegation spot then they would have fair argument for pursuing a second season of ground sharing. Would Gretna really be breaking any rules or not adhering to any criteria if they sought such a solution???...not by my understanding. We've already established that none of us mind when the rules are bent/interpreted to suit ourselves, or when they are superseded on the basis of "common sense"....I guess that only leaves the argument of how much a team should do to argue their case and when they should start that argument!!! As for your game being rescheduled as a result of the ground share....if the nonsensical Stadium Criteria had not been in place to start with then Gretna would have no need of a ground share - so again the cause goes all the way back to the SPL for having such stupid rules in the first place and is not the fault of Gretna FC. I guess what I really object to is the placing of blame entirely at the feet of Gretna when it is the system that is fundamentally flawed, and the inability of some people to realise that even though we (ICT) brought about some changes to improve it, it's still far from perfect. Some ICT fans seem to have quickly forgotten that we originally fought for the abolition of the minimum seating criteria and eventually settled on a compromise....what has changed since we got in to the SPL that means we no longer think the minimum seating criteria is wrong? The only thing that has changed is that we are now part of the establishment, and in the minds of some, anything that helps keep us here seems perfectly acceptable.....not me.

I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of teams who have, in the past, been put under great financial stress by the Stadium criteria laid down by the SPL and who suffer from those costs even to this day. However, we cannot keep on living in the past and keep forcing the same problems on other teams on the basis of "we had to do it so they should too". Some people will be annoyed because they are of the opinion that Gretna have done nothing to help themselves, and that may be justified. However, the situation is not of their making and was it not for the existence of the stupid criteria in the first place then we would not be having this conversation to begin with. If your feeling aggrieved and bitter then that should be targeted at the SPL, they are the ones who put your club in the position it is in, not Gretna or any other single team....all they are doing is what is best by them within the rules laid out by the SPL. It's the system that is wrong.

He was, but he was also due to return to the Pars as his loan expired in January. For what I can gather he's technically still here on loan until the end of the season and we only have a pre-contract with him at this time and he doesn't sign permanently until the summer....although I could be wrong.

Did anyone seriously expect Gretna to have made a start on expanding their ground unless they had a real chance of avoiding relegation? Indeed had we not been in the position we were and had the opportunity to return to Inverness early then I very much doubt we would have started expansion by this stage in our first season in the SPL. Where did Gretna make this "promise" that everyone keeps going on about? The rules only state that all teams should provide details of the SPL compliant ground which they intend to use for the forthcoming season prior to the 31st March, nowhere does it say that you can only ground share for a single season or that you must have your own stadium by a set date. In fact it was that very rule which ICT used to their advantage when they agreed the ground share with Aberdeen, even though it was not the intention of the rule to allow for ground sharing at all.

That's my understanding of the situation also.

Gretna could, and probably should have been doing more to strengthen their case, and had they not been sitting so far off the bottom of the table then I suspect they would have done just that....however, the SPL have stepped in with what would seem to be a pre-emptive strike by saying there's no room for negotiation.....little wonder then that they would simply accept their fate and make no attempt. I don't agree with any criteria being set outwith results on the park (other than inability to run a solvent club). The argument that "we had to do it so they should too" is an argument we fought tooth and nail against when Partick were trying to prevent our promotion and for us to turn around now and use it against another team just sticks in the craw as far as I am concerned. Unless you are in agreement with having stadium criteria as a deciding factor in relegation and promotion then there's no other plausible argument for anyone other than the bottom team going down, and no team should have to go through what we went through in fighting for a position in a league they have earned through performance on the park.

I don't think Gretna should be booted out of the SPL for any reason other than coming last in the league. I also find it extremely ironic that any ICT fans should be getting all high and mighty about it after what we had to go through. How quickly the self preservation kicks in!!!!!

No :blah01:

We have a smaller squad which brings obvious risks, but it will also give some of the fringe players a chance to step up to the plate, prove their worth and earn new contracts if that is their desire. We've only lost one 1st team regular during the window, and based on past windows that's a plus for us....and being as we have an abundance of midfielders then it's not as if we've left ourselves short in that department. We also secured a deal for McGuire in a much needed position and Imrie has the potential to perform in the SPL. We should never have allowed ourselves to get into the position where we have so many contracts due to expire at the same time, but players who are hungry to get a place in the team and secure a contract will go out on to the pitch and give their all. What's important right now is that the club keep on top of things over the next couple of months to ensure that they do secure the services of those they want to keep and not leave them hanging in uncertainty so long that they start taking up pre-contracts with other clubs just so as they can secure their future. I'll predict that Wyness, Duncan, Patti & Hart will all sign new deals with us in the next couple of months. Rossco is for the off as he no longer wants to be here for various reasons and McDonald will be allowed to leave for free in the summer to move back down south.....no reflection on the guys ability, I just don't think he is settled or suited to the game in Scotland. In short, nothing has happened during the transfer window which makes us any the weaker for the remainder of the season and our chances of making a top 6 are just the same now as they were on the last day of December.

You can be sure I won't be attaching my name to designing any logo with a Nazi Eagle on it.

Based on previous decisions made by the SFA under similar circumstances I can't see how it is possible for them to justify throwing Brechin out of the Cup. Arbroath were fined ?20,000 and ordered to replay a game for fielding two ineligible players not so long ago, and this situation is no different. You also have other cases where St Mirren were fined ?10,000 for not adhering to the U21 rule but no re-match was ordered as the original result was a draw and they had to replay anyway and QotS received a similar fine but no re-match could be ordered as they had already been knocked out in a later match before it came to the attention of the SFA that they had breached the player eligibility criteria.

It would happen a lot faster if the Supporters Trust had more members, and as such was more representative of the fans and gave people the confidence to sign over their proxy to the Trust. Doesn't matter if it's ?50, ?25, ?10 ?5 or ?1....I am of the opinion that it is an unnecessary obstacle and one which is holding back the Trust from realising it's potential. I don't personally feel ?10 is a lot of money, but you can be sure their are others out there who would far rather spend it on something else and use it as an excuse to dismiss the idea of joining. This is a line that I had thrown at me at one of the previous Trust meetings when it was suggested that I be given my ?10 back and told to go home. It was noted that the idea of removing the joining fee would be discussed and brought up at the next AGM. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the AGM just passed, so I cannot confirm what the outcome was of that discussion or the vote that should have taken place. Why should anyone get to attend meetings of any form of membership club if they dont become members. I drink in the Caley club but am not a member so wouldn't expect to be allowed to attend meetings. As for finding out what its all about check the website, ask the committee, check other Trust's websites. But in support of what you say perhaps the Trust could organise an open meet for people who want to fact find. Like yourself I was at the very first meeting and, to be honest, the turnout was pretty dire so would it work a couple of years down the line? Is the concept of being inclusive instead of exclusive so alien to everyone that they feel that if they are giving people something then they must have something in return, even if it's not needed? Granted, that works two ways, but the Trust have it within their ability to change that way of thinking among ICT fans in relation to both themselves and the club....ok, you'll get those who will take advantage of it, but you'll also get far more who will appreciate the gesture and those are the people who will help if and when it is needed. The Trust was not formed to help dissolve the members club. The Members Club was a closed shop of a very small minority who carried a fairly significant voice. The Trust was formed to create a society which would be open to ALL members and had the aim of giving everyone a voice. It was never at any time prior to or during the setting up of the Trust certain that the Members Club were even interested in transferring their shares/voting right, let alone had taken any action to instigate the creation of an alternative body for the holding of those rights. As it happened that was something that did eventually happen, but I'm not even sure the majority of fans know that the Members Club was dissolved or that the 12.5% (I think) voting right was transferred to the Supporters Trust. History does show that the largest Supporters Trust are born out of a crisis at the respective clubs and many of these Trusts have ongoing financial commitments as a result of bailing their teams out of a financial hole...hence the reason why some of them have such large membership fees. But we aren't in that situation and we have no desperate need to be building up a huge bank balance. I am a strong believer in the principle of Supporters Trusts and everyone who is able to join should join. However, the Trust also has a responsibility to make it as easy and as affordable as possible in order to open it up to everyone and remove all excuses practical for people not to join. At this moment in time I am of the opinion that the existence of a membership fee cannot be justified, certainly not on the grounds of "we need the money". The day may come when the Trust will be in a situation that every penny they can bring in is desperately needed, but surely the best preparation for that is to have as many people on board as possible in advance....even better if you can have EVERYONE on board. If the 5hit ever does hit the fan, surely it's better to have a list of a few thousand members who know the Trust and how it works who you can contact quickly instead of just a few hundred. That's the reason this country invests so heavily in a Territorial Army...they hope the day never comes when they are needed, but if and when it does they are ready to hit the ground running. In the meantime, you have a large society with one **** of a voice which helps reduce the risk of problems happening in the first place. It also accelerates the potential to grow the shareholding and adds value to the ICT Community which in turn grows the number of fans and grows the size/strength of the Trust. Something needs to kick start the process and the Trust are far better placed to do that than anyone else.

ICT have pulled something out of the hat at the last minute too many times for me to be too worried about our lack of transfer window activity at the moment.

What are the benefits of being a member of the trust? I assume it costs mazoola? If the trust was free where would thye get funds? Can't say a fiver a year for a share in the club is too much to pay. Benifits:- Discount in shop. Priority for tickets. A voice on the board. To name just three. If the Trust are relying on membership fees to raise funds/operate then they'd be as well packing up the whole thing now. As it is, they don't, and they have done a great job of raising funds through the events etc they run and I'm sure that will continue and grow. It's not ?5/year, it's ?10. Shop discount and priority tickets are already available to a vast majority of fans through them being season ticket holder, shareholder or centenary club member. The Trust have no representation on the club board. The thing is, the bigger the Supporters Trust, the more representative it is of the fans, the more people it has to attract to fund raising events, the larger the voice and the more likely they are to get that seat on the Board of Directors. A lot of people remain cynical of the benefits of being a Trust Member and will never part with a penny to join, they therefore never get a chance to attend the meetings or AGM to find out what it is about and buy in to the idea. Open the doors, invite everyone in and remove all obstacles....only then will the Supporters Trust realise it's full potential in being a voice for ALL fans. If people wish to make a donation, then so be it, allow them to do that by choice and not by necessity. Many people on here will argue that when it comes to football attendances they are too expensive and it is better to have 5000 people pay ?10 than 2500 paying ?20 as you benefit from the other stuff.....I make the same argument in support of making the Trust free for all to join. Better to have 3000 members all contributing to the organisation than just a few hundred, and if that means giving up a couple of thousand a year in membership fees then I'm sure it will be recouped several times over in other areas.

I've dabbled with logo design for years. When I started off doing it I used good old pencil and paper, and most of my ideas start off like that still before I start to lay anything down on the computer. I use a couple of different packages on the PC depending on what I'm trying to achieve, but mostly I knock them together in Macromedia Fireworks. The idea for the above logo came from the concept of having something which would convey the feeling of friendship/belonging/co-operation. The (brackets) criss cross in the manner they do to show the bringing together of the 3 elements of ICT - Inverness (the support), Caley and Thistle - into a single entity. The idea first came to me years back and it wasn't till last year when trying to come up with a log for the Highland Marchers that I got round to putting it down on paper (the screen). I've just (finally) come up with another logo for them, but I'll give you a sneak preview here :004: [attach=1]

We get this topic about 3 times a year :015:

The logo identifies the group as belonging to ICT so I don't think it would be good to change the 3 main letters that make it up. You could just add the name round the outside (as per the attached)....I've just used the BENI as an example [attach=1]

A Supporters Trust that is FREE for all supporters/fans to join.

there's a couple of better ones than that but no words that i know of.... :009: We Will Rock You is better, but I have it in the back of my mind that someone else uses that tune, albeit not the Chilli Pipers version.

Red Hot Chilli Pipers - Voodoo Chile