CaleyD

:015: at the last line. The rest of it makes for interesting thought, and although I would never want to see the club spending beyond it's means it does show why some are keen to push the limits of the bank balance in attempts to achieve an extra couple of league places. My thought for the day on this point... Is their a sensible balance of risk/reward to be found in taking on short term loans of "bigger" players with higher wage demands in an attempt to secure a top 6?

I know what your getting at Alex and I agree. What I was trying to focus on was that the phrase "wage structure" seems to have gone and is no longer being trotted out by the Board, The Manager and the players when interviewed on such things. It used to be the standard excuse for us not being able to hold on to players, but no longer seems to be part of the defensive arsenal. In other words, the club etc are making positive noises about negotiations instead of the usual, much expected, negative. I think most of us will realise that, strict wage structure or not, we have to continue to keep wages etc affordable, but the emphasis on 'one team one pay deal' seems to have gone and perhaps the club have realised that we do have players who are justifiably worth more than others and are making changes/offers accordingly. Nothing may have changed other than attitudes to such things, but even if that is the case, I still think it's a plus point that perhaps those involved are seeing us/themselves a little less as the "wee team" and more on a level playing field with others and that's increasing positive talk - something thats not happening all the time (e.g. CC's constant mention of "a club of our size") but it is a shift in the right direction.

Are we seeing the starts of a slightly different train of thought with the new chairman now in place? In the past when it's come to contract talks with players the publicity from the club has always emphasised on the fact that we have a wage structure in place and offers would be made in line with that. I've noticed that during this transfer window and leading up to it the response to these queries from the club has been a bit different. Not once in any press article, in the Q&A session we did with Alan Savage or in any interviews with CC have we heard the "wage structure" being mentioned. We still get comments about having to watch the budget etc, but we are also hearing a lot of talk about players being given not only enhanced offers but "Greatly Enhanced Offers". This point only struck me tonight when I was listening to CC's post match interview when he was asked about Dods and he made the above statement. Dods has said that he wants to move at the end of the season and it was mentioned earlier in the season that he was looking for a deal that would take him through to the end of his playing days. All in all I can't help but wonder if having a new man at the helm has brought a different line of thought to the whole "wage structure" issue and the club are now taking player salaries/packages a bit more seriously than some of us might have thought they did in the past. Granted we saw David Sutherland play hardball with the grocer at the start of the season, but I feel that we are maybe seeing a bit more value in retaining players than we are in letting them go for any and all offers received, and we are in fact looking to push the player salary budget a bit more. Whether that comes at the expense of bringing in "bigger" players or not is yet to be seen, but I think that the early signs are pretty positive and we might finally be starting to view ourselves as a bit bigger than we may have done the last 2 or 3 seasons.

It's not nice to see any player get a serious injury, and you have to wonder what it will take for Brewster to decide enough is enough. Not denying the guy still has the ability to continue playing, but surely thier comes a time when you realise that your doing yourself more harm than good by pushing it so much, especially when your picking up injuries like this? These are the kinds of injuries that will really take their toll in later years and this dislocation on top of his knee injury from last year will really be punishing his body. He came into professional football later than most and has had a pretty succesful career, nothing he does from here on in is going to improve his "status" and he's already set for life (financially) so it's not like he needs the cash. He's obviously a great man for fitness and training and I think it's about time he concentrated on that and bowed out as a player before he really comes a cropper. He made a (positive) reputation for himself whilst here with what he did for our fitness, he should be taking advantage of that whilst it's still fresh in people's minds - opinions may change. I mean, if he gets any publicity for pushing himself too far and to the brink of these injuries, it's going to put doubt in clubs minds about whether he may push those he is coaching too far.

Even if he had signed for us now, CC had said he wouldn't join us until Monday so I wouldn't have expected to see him in the squad. Don't think it would be a good idea to drop him straight into the starting 11 anyway - he (and the squad) will need a few training sessions together under their belt to acclimatise first.

Don't think you can simpy dismiss Bayne because he doesn't score goals. You have to look at how many goals he contributes too and the part he plays in making opposition defence really have to work hard which creates opportunities for others. Nobody in our current squad works a defence harder than Bayne.

Doesn't matter how many times you say the same thing - I still disagree :016:

Disagree - I think Bayne and Wyness have shown recently that they are our strongest partnership up front (at the moment at least) Also a little strange that you think Wyness and Dargo were strong up front against Stirling when Wyness was actually playing in behind a front two of Bayne and Dargo. This would suggest to me that Dargo can/does only perform at his best when he isn't asked to do any leg work and someone else is doing all the graft in order to put the ball at his feet.

I think people have made sensible suggestions, and have been making them for a long while now. The frustration (certainly from my point of view and experience) is that suggestions seem to be totally ignored. As for CC not having a go at the fans who do turn up, again I have to disagree and it's not only CC. We've all seen the articles about wanting more noise from the crowd, wanting people to get behind the team more etc etc. We've also all seen the articles where the constant answer to crowd sizes is that fans should bring a friend. First off, it is the actions of the clubs (or more sspecifically their emplyees) which are killing much of the atmosphere - the sit down shut up approach taken by stewards leaves many people looking over their shoulder when they do decide to get a bit vocal, or stand (even for a few seconds) to cheer on the team. They feed us stories about the SPL/Safety rules not allowing it blah blah blah, yet they continue to allow it in the away end and when you look around just about any other all seated stadia in the country you see fans standing and cheering without so much as a sideways glance from stewards or mention of many of the problems we seem to have had in this regard. Secondly, many people DO try and encourage people to come along each week, but they are farting against thunder due to pricing/conditions/lack of pre-match & half time entertainment/delays getting away from the stadium/insufficient serveries etc....they all might be small things in themselves, but taken as part of the package then it is more than enough to give people the excuse not to go. I don't think anyone is expecting them to do it all and come up with all the answers - but we are just as powerless to bring about change on our own as the club is on their own. The club needs to be doing more to help us help them. Between us we need to remove all (or as many as possible) excuses for people not to attend - Football is a team sport, both on the park and off it, and we all have a part to play. The guys on the park can't perform at their best if half the team stands around pointing the finger at the other, and the same goes with the club and the fans.

They'll have to resort to printing another story about our interest in Mackie :015:

Shame :001:

No :002:

After talk not so long ago about the Courier using quotes from this site in the Fans Letters section I had to have a wee chuckle to myself last night. Sat down to fully read all the ICT news in the paper, got to the Fans Letter section and saw that I had been quoted - started cursing and blinding that they had used some journalistic license on what I had said which twisted the whole point I was getting at (1 more sentence would have made my point clear). I then had to stop and have a wee laugh after realising that I was getting worked up over something I had told people not to get upset over only a couple of weeks back :015: Also good to see this site getting a positive mention together with the large section on the questions/answers session that had been done with Alan Savage - So I guess it's swings and roundabouts.

If true, the story hasn't been picked up by any of the big news syndicates and appears nowhere else.

Sounds like we're creating thebest of the chances. Was a bit worried early on when they mentioned we didn't have any players in attacking positions, but seems to have been sorted.

Barry has indicated in the past that he wants to move into coaching when he retires from playing so I would suspect that any renewed contract will be for X amount of time playing with an option to extend playing if he is still up to it or to move into a coaching role. Either way I think ICT will be his first choice and I'm not too worried about him wanting away to anywhere else.

We really do need a tongue in cheek smiley :015:

Be interesting to see how CC chooses to set things up tomorrow if Brewster starts. He (CC) seems to have been making a lot of using the 3-4-3 in the press in the last week or so, and I can't decide if thats a bluff or double-bluff in our run up to this match.

Was in the Highland Snooze yesterday aswell.

Hmmmm :024: Cowdenbeath Official site reporting that No Deal has been done Clicky Clicky

Near lost his leg back in March 2006 accorcing to the BBC

You obviously missed the 2nd to last paragraph of my post - I have read Article 17 and it contains no such clause - Neither does FIFA Circular 769 which was another document quoted by the press last June when all this was going on.

ok, so if my reading of the whole situation is correct, he has signed a pre-contract that will see him here at the end of the season and the club are trying to arrange an immediate release with Cowdenbeath so he can join us now. Probably explains why all the reports so far have been conflicting.

They are only allowed to pay 2 players more than the capped amount and wages in excess of $400,000 must be paid by the club and not the MLS.

I think Mad Vlad and all the (currently) laughing Hearts fans will be left with a bit of egg on their face with this one. Some Facts....... 1. Webster terminated his contract with Hearts under Article 17 on the basis Alex mentioned above. This made him free to sign for anyone else. 2. Webster moved to Wigan on an International Transfer Certificate on 30Th August 2006. This proved he was a free agent. 3. As per FIFA Articles and ITC can only be issued "providing the player is not under written contract to a Club, is not suspended from football for disciplinary reasons, and has fulfilled all obligations to the former Club." This proves that he had severed his contract with Hearts and fulfilled any remaining obligations. 4. As per FIFA Articles an "ITC must be issued free of charge and without any conditions or time limitations." This proves that no restrictions could have been placed on his signing for Wigan 5. As per FIFA Articles a player can be registered with 3 teams in any sports season, but can only play for the first 2. This proves that their is nothing preventing him from registering as a player through Rangers. Although depending on dates, could prevent him playing (see below). Taking items 1-4 above into consideration, there is no possible way that Hearts can claim ownership of Websters registration Even under item 5 above, Websters contract wiTh Hearts was terminated on June 30th last year. As the new season doesn't start until after that date then Webster was not registered with Hearts for the Season 2006/07. That means his first club was Wigan and his second club would be Rangers. Also, there is nothing in any of the FIFA articles which states that a player cannot return to play in the same association within 12 months after exercising his rights under Article 17, which is what seems to be the basis of some of the arguments in support of Mad Vlad's actions. In short the Lunatic Lithuanian is blowing smoke out his Erse - although it is funny that he seems to be giving Rangers and the SFA a bit of a runaround :015: