CaleyD

Don't hold your breath on that one - Megabus is point A to B and nothing in between (other than connections) and most, if not all, drivers I know off won't entertain requests for stopping elsewhere. I know I don't as it is just asking for trouble, before you know it you have people asking off at every stop on the way in to town.

Nope

This thread reminded me of this

See the Tickets Still Available thread in announcements at top of forum :014: :016:

Who we do (or don't) bring in this summer could well make or break us over the next couple of seasons. The club are going to have to dig as deep as they can (dare) into the bank balance to bring in at least one or two "quality" players IMO. We really could do with some fresh investment at the club, we have unsold shares sitting there gathering dust and I would like to see our Chairman utilise some of the "contacts" he has been on about since joining us in order to encourage someone to take up whats there and get some coffers in the bank. I'm not a fan of loan deals but if the money isn't there for capital outlay then we may be resigned to going down this route, at least in the short term.

And this weeks award for "Master of stating the Feckin Obvious" goes to IHE for the above statement. :015:

Less games does not necessarily equal less revenue. As Chibber has already said, it could mean cheaper Season Tickets, increasing the number purchased and offsetting the loss. You also have the situation whereby we play a bigger variety of teams, this reduces the "I'll not bother this time, we can go see us play them later in the season" scenario we currently have with playing some teams twice at home/away, which may just encourage a few more along to the "smaller" games. Prior to David Sutherland stepping down as Chairman of ICT he eluded to their being growing support from SPL clubs to do away with the split. I have a transcript of the meeting somewhere, but I think he mentioned more of a push toward a 10 team SPL as opposed to 16. As far as I am concerned a move to 10 teams would be self defeating as what we need to do is inject more variety into the season not make it even more mundane - I'd rather have the current setup than reduce the number of teams any further. Whatever happens, something needs to be done and the SPL/SFL/SFA need to start listening to the fans to find out what they want as they are the customer and only a fool fails to listen to their customers.

So, if we're lucky we'll have it by Christmas then :015:

People are talking as if we have some right to win this game.....but only if the team selection is right. In other words if we lose the match then CC is in a no-win situation regardless of his team selection as the boo-boys will be out in force (again) saying that he got it wrong. It'll be the same old "shoulda started with..." or "that substitution made no sense/was too late/was the wrong player" Winning doesn't even seem to please some people and they will still come away with "we got lucky, it doesn't make CC a good manager" type comments. Doesn't matter what the team is on the day, the lads will have to be performing at their best to get the result. EVERY player mentioned so far is capable of a match winning performance when on form, and that includes those that are being singled out as "not good enough". I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about team selection or comment on whether it could/should have been different, but we have to lose the mindset that just because CC doesn't play it the way we see it that our ideas would have produced a different result. Some of the suggested line-ups on here are adventurous and risky, to say the least - it's easy to suggest a line-up we are highly unlikely to see then come back after a bad result and say "if we had gone with...." the result would have been different.

Looks like the lads were unlucky to lose 2-1, or at least not take more from the game. Gordon Gillespie has kindly provided some match pics - Clicky Clicky And the Match Report is on the Official Site - Clicky Clicky

As much as Black p!ssed me off with his shirt throwing antics etc, you have to learn to bite the bullet and use the best you have available. IF he's been sidelined for his attitude as a punishment then it is a punishment the entire team is suffering from and I'm up for giving him a second chance if it's to the teams benefit. Would like to see McSwegan given a decent amount of time on the park. His fitness can't be all that far off, and even if he can only last the first/second 45 then I think we could make good use of a mature head upfront, someone to put a foot on the ball and either have a pop or lay off to Bayne/Anyone coming forward. Thats the only weakness I can see in Chibbers formation, somone to lay balls off to or link up with Wilson/Rankin coming in off the wings. Perhaps start with McSwegan behind Bayne and drop Duncan from the starting XI - if it's not working then take McSwegan off and put Duncan in as above. Kinda just playing Devils Advocate here and would have no issue if we started as per Chibbers suggestion (i.e. would be feckin boring if we all just agreed with Chibber and he'd never get his head through the turnstile on Sunday :015:)

Some decent points there CH2 and glad to see you backing them with a bit of reasoning. However, you seem to have summed up your entire reasoning for following ICT and contributing to these forums with... So your whole reasoning for listening was in the hope that you could find something to prove yourself right and you were glad that the team had a bad day so you could come on here and gloat about it. In all honesty bud, I'd take myself off on a bit of a soul searching mission to find out which team you really support cause it ain't ICT. Any real fan/supporter would have been sad/disappointed to have listened in on the game to find any fears they had being played out in reality - not, as in your case, get their jollies from it.

ch2, under your philosphy that all the positions that matter are already decided, then the split makes absolutely no difference and doesn't change that fact. All the split does is gives the middle teams something to aim for - a top 6 finish - which makes still the post split matches practically meaningless anyway. It's not the split which is the biggest problem in making the SPL more (evenly) competitive, it's the distribution of the money that comes in to the legue that's the problem. As with many things in life it is designed to make the wealthiest clubs even wealthier, leaving the 'smaller' clubs battling it out for thescraps - which in reality make very little difference to their ability to strengthen and compete with the big boys. In short, the Split only acts as a distraction to the bigger and more important issues that exist in Scottish Football.

Any time I have seen Xander on the reserve teamsheets it's been with an X, not a Y.

Thats the problem - they can only take action against him as an individual, they can't take any action against Hearts as "legally" he is nothing more than a shareholder. As far as I am aware they can't just say "we don't like you, now along you run and find some new friends"

You know, I'm with IHE - Small Fan Mentality :014:

I recall a rumour doing the rounds previously when Sutherland was suppose to have been in talks with Romanov about some kind of agreement to bring players in. It would seem our interest in looking East still exists and I have no objection to bringin in ANY player that helps improve the squad provided the core of the team remains Scottish.

Larger corwds = More foods sales - which increases the value of the lease on the catering booths meaning it will attract larger bids the next time it goes out to tender. It could and should aslo lead to an increase in the number of these booths around the stadium - All of which increases the revenue for the club.

The net effect of lowering ticket prices to increase crowds also has to take into account the other revenue streams an increased crowd size brings - like merchandise, food, programmes etc.. Lets say you have £50 surplus income and your considering going to this match - the first thing that comes into a your head is the cost of the ticket and if your going to charge what people feel is "over the odds" then you have immediately given them a reason to look elsewhere. So not only do you lose out on the £25 from the ticket, you probably lose out on a fair portion of what remains from their surplus income to be used on that day. If the Club did something to grow the number of bums on seats it then hepls justify spending on a whole range of other income streams to offset the rediced gate revenue, like proper eating facilities (restaurant/diner) and possibly a bar at/near the stadium in order to attract as much as possible from people's leisure funds. The money is their to be had, and you can have it without leaving your customers feeling like they have just been robbed. If the club actually made a bit of effort to find out what the people of Inverness want/expect from a matchday and how much they would be willing to pay for that then they would at least have some facts to base decisions on. You can't compare ICT with most other clubs when it comes to trying these initiatives becase we are in an almost unique situation of not having another SPL team on our doorstep. In the majority of cases for other clubs they are battling with each other to attract the "local" punters along on matchdays and many will have allegiances elsewhere and already be attending matches elsewhere so it's no wonder they struggle to increase gates. ICT are only battling with the cinema, rollerbowl, a trip to the supermarket, going into town shopping or watching a match on the TV....and to date, it's a battle they are losing badly. If the people who post on this forum (and the majority I think will be diehard fans) are becoming disenchanted with these things, then it's a no-brainer that those who are a little less interested don't even include going to see ICT in the equation the moment they see a ticket price that is even slightly unappealing.

Can't say too much, but I had a conversation with someone today and the group were unable to purchase tickets for seats which they have season tickets for because they had "unfortunately" been sold to someone else and as with the poster in the opening thread were only given the option to purchase tickets in the main stand or uncovered wings, and even then they could not get tickets all together despite them sitting together every other match at the stadium. Now, reading between the lines of various things I have heard it would seem that someone or something has screwed up somewhere along the line on a fairly monumental scale and it would seem to be due to the fact that Season Ticket Holders were allowed to purchase up to 4 tickets. Also, don't be suprised if the club announce that their are NO tickets available for public sale, or a very very limited number.

Wilson will be the third player to reach 300 - Rossco and Christie being the others.

Other than the fact the stadium only holds around 7500 you mean? :016:

The club cannot survive on income from 'big' cup matches and matches v the Old Firm alone, these are the icing on the cake and they should be putting more effort into securing bums on seats for the bread and butter games. The "maximise income" argument looks sensible enough on the surface, but if the cost is loosing season ticket holders and regular pay at the gate customers because they are fed up being squeezed for their hard earned then it becomes counter productive.

The opinions we are seeing here are the extremes - the solution lies somewhere in the middle and rewards loyalty whilst maintaining a satisfactory income for the club. What frustrates me is the fact that all decisions being made at present are blinkered to the idea of screwing as much money out of the loyal fans as is possible at every opportunity and there's only so many times you can do that before people start to vote with their feet.

In the last cople of seasons (especially this season) Brown was really starting to show improvements when it came to commanding his area. One thing that used to annoy me about Brown was his reluctance to play the quick ball back out into play, often allowing opponents to reform at the back after coming forward. Fraser seems to have more vision and confidence in this department and I think our forward play is benefiting as a result. It's early days and I think Fraser is still to be truly tested, but so far so good and long may it continue.