CaleyD

Although I agree that geography doesn't help I do think that ICT are more guilty than anyone of playing up the problem of location instead of playing it down in order to encourage players North. Instead of comments like... "It's a real problem taking players North because of the location and we understand that" ...it should be... "Inverness isn't as detached as some may think what with the now regular availability of flights from many major airports throughout the UK etc" - we really do need someone at the club who is a little more media savvy and can help them spin the right stories where needed.

I never once heard the Cheerleaders getting booed off. I don't think they helped bring people to games, but it was good to see them out there doing something they enjoyed and there's merit in promoting that kind of activity at the club as well. The club should be welcoming any group of performers with open arms at home matches and allowing them to do there thing whatever it be. If nothing else it helps kill half-time boredom.

Mike Teasdale - He wasn't the most skillful but when he got the ball at his feet and just put the head down and drove straight up the middle of the park it epitomised everything that ICT stand for in terms of going out on to the pitch and just giving 100% of what you have, regardless of your ability.

I have a sneaky feeling that some stupid rule somewhere means that if we did that and it was considered a "home match" then we would only be able to use seated areas as we are an SPL team.

From memory I believe a club can hold a "testimonial" (benefits match) for anyone they wish and although the match itself would still need to be sanctioned by the SFA it takes nothing to do with the finance side of it and the proceeds are subject to Tax. Anyone (person or organisation) which falls under the jurisdiction of the SFA is entitled to a Testimonial provided it is approved by the SFA - as far as I remember there was no hard and fast rules, all the application had to provide was "sufficient reason". A player is only entitled to one testimonial except in circumstances - e.g they have had one already and then suffer an illness or injury which is career ending. I had a copy of the SFA Handbook somewhere but I think it is on my other PC.

This whole Elton John Concert idea seems to be turning in to more and more of a nightmare as time goes on. Firstly we couldn't go for the Intertoto because it was on one of the fixture dates and now we will have no pre-season friendlies at home because the pitch needs time to recover!!! Bah Feckin Humbug

This website is no longer run as the clubs official website.

Let me try and expand on the websites position a little. - When the subject was first posted on here it was nothing more than a rumour. - The allegations that an Inverness Player has been caught in possession of a substance which is still to be analysed by the police appear to be the only facts which have been confirmed by any official source (police, club or individual involved). As such the websites stance has moved from one which banned all talk of the subject to one which is allowing discussion surrounding the facts as we know them to be at present - this position will change as more information is confirmed. What we cannot allow at the moment is any comment relating to people's opinions on whether the player is guilty, innocent or otherwise. We also have to be very careful as what we allow to be portrayed as "facts" - the reason for this is two-fold. Firstly anyone who believes they have any facts should contact the police, not post it on a public forum and secondly if something is posted as "fact" then you (and this site) may be asked to provide evidence to support that "fact" in a court of law should the case go to trial. We would be legally bound to provide the authorities with all details we hold regarding any person posting "facts". Now, should anything that is posted as a fact turn out to be false then the individual who posted it could find themselves facing charges in connection to that and defamation of character. Should you post an opinion saying the person is guilty and they are later found to be innocent you could again face charges of defamation of character. Although each individual is ultimately responsible for what they post, this site has a duty of care to ensure things are not allowed to get out of hand. We also have a legal responsibility to prevent any discussion from turning into an online trial. With regards to what has been posted on other forums, that is their lookout - the only thing we are concerned about is this website, it's users and our own butts. With regards to what is in the Newspapers, they will find themselves in the exact same position as anyone else with regards to providing evidence to support any allegations they make or facts they print. So, in short - you can discuss the subject, you can discuss the allegations which have been made in the press and you can discuss the facts as they are known to be. What cannot be discussed is anything regarding the guilt or innocence of the player or any so-called facts - e.g "My mate said that he saw.....etc" - The only facts we will allow to be discussed are those which have been confirmed by an official source. Being an official or an unofficial site has nothing to do with our stance. Being unofficial does not remove the need for us to comply with the law and take a sensible approach to such discussions. You may think it's harsh, but that's just the way it is. Our stance will not change - although the discussion will evolve within the confines of the boundaries laid out above as more official information comes to light. You are free to moan and complain about it all you like, but can we ask that you do so via e.mail or Private Message to avoid cluttering up the forum.

Although I agree that ICT may have missed out on a decent prospect I fail to see how it can be compared to the Dargo situation. He came up here for a trial previously and ICT said they weren't willing to make an offer at the time but they would like to see him again during the summer. They pointed out where they thought he was lacking and he had the chance to go away and work on those things before coming back. He has decided that he wasn't willing to come for another trial for whatever reason and has signed elsewhere - nobody has been stringing anyone along and both parties knew where they stood.

We're guaranteed decent weather for those matches then lol

Inability I can accept - some players just don't have it, but laziness just grinds with me no matter how good a player thinks they are - for that reason I would have Xausa at #1

Outwith the OF I don't think any club in the SPL can claim to be anything else.

If Dundee Utd finish above 9th I'll kiss IHE's tattoo.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong but I think the last contract Munro signed was a 3 year deal with a Testimonial in the 3rd year (which may actually be next season???)

1: Rangers 2: Celtic 3: Aberdeen 4: Hibs 5: ICT 6: Hearts 7: Killie 8: Gretna 9: Motherwell 10: Falkirk 11: Dundee Utd 12: St Mirren

The club made numerous efforts to open negotiations with Craig Dargo throughout the whole of last season and Craig Dargo and his agent refused to even look at them. The answer was always "We'll talk about it at the end of the season" - not the actions of a man who was even willing to consider an offer from ICT in my book. Added to the above....... 1. He has apparently made the decision to leave without having decided where he is going 2. We've heard nothing of any firm offers from anyone else 3. The "Story" being leaked that his girlfriend wasn't happy in Inverness to pave the way for an easy excuse to depart ....and I think it's safe to say his mind has probably been made up for quite some time - he was simply stalling to.... a. See how much interest other clubs were showing b. Get some press to highlight the fact he was available c. Use the offer from ICT to bump up offers from elsewhere until such time as he 2 others interested and could set them bidding against each other to maximise his income He's played this entire scenario with only himself in mind and we can argue the rights and wrongs of his actions all day long and everyone will read it different and feel differently. All the "you shouldn't feel like this or that" from others won't change a thing. Personally, I think he has just "used" the club with little regard or thanks for what we have done for him. You can argue that he repaid that debt with all his goals, but there are ways and means of doing things and this whole affair just doesn't sit right with me. As for wishing him well or wishing him ill - I really don't care one way or the other. I thank him for his contribution to the rise and rise of ICT but I can't help thinking back to Hastings when his Agent told him he was worth more and he ended up at C*unty :024:

http://www.voteyourteam.com/Europe/Scotland.aspx

I nearly suggested that they produce a set of one off shirts for the occasion :029:

Assume that was done on the basis that the squads have been prematurely updated for 2007/08 and as Dods has let then he could not be set as captain. I have done some minor edits to the wiki pages over the years and it always ends up in a battle with the self proclaimed experts and powers who be who threaten to have you banished from the face of the earth should you choose to disagree with something they have added or pick them up on an error. The most recent one that has made me laugh is the removal of Rankin as a "Famous Player" whilst Xausa was happily allowed to remain...lol.

Sounds like a cheap lager!!!

Nothing in what you want to see that can't be achieved without the need for a full blown public inquest.

We've obviously been paying him too much - reduce the offer :tic01:

I don't think it would be in anyones best interests for that level of information to be placed in the public domain. The word of the Trust and the Chairman that matters have been handled appropriately and assurances given for going forward together with some general feedback are sufficient. Nobody died and nobody was injured so no need for a public inquest.

The club should be made aware of what is expected from them in terms of contributing to the meeting. They should be invited to attend on the basis that they have some feedback and answers - if they aren't able or willing to do that then they should be told not to bother coming and wasting everyones time, because without it, any effort to form a future singing section will be made all the more impossible.

LG, it really isn't that difficult a question - I know your trying to be helpful but I'm finding your answers rather frustrating. Surely the Trust must know under what basis Alan Savage has been invited to the meeting and whether he is willing and able to give the feedback and answers people are looking for. If they don't then I see little point in having a meeting whereby the chance exists that he'll stand up and say "we're waiting on the outcome of our investigations". IMO, many people will not be willing to throw their support behind any future plans for a singing section if they are going to be faced with the possibility of treatment such as they received at the Dunfermline game. I fail to see how we can move forward with these plans until that has been cleared up - everyone needs to know where they stand and what is expected of them. On that basis I would say that it is VITAL that the club give proper feedback and answers at the meeting and if they aren't going to then there's little point in having it at all.