CaleyD

Confirmation of details for the game v Stirling Albion. Saturday 9th January - Kick Off 3pm - Pay at the Gate Prices: Adults £15 - Over 65 & Students £10 - U16's £5

Believe it or not, we don't actually have any footage from our match in Romania. AndyCam was (literally) taken hostage by an over-zealous steward over there and denied access to the TV gantry. They did promise to have a copy of the game for us made up before we left...but that didn't happen and the promise to send it on to us never transpired. Complaint to UEFA fell on deaf ears. Even if we had the footage, there's huge restrictions on what you can use and you have to pay a pretty penny for the right to reproduce it....so it would likely have ended up being cost prohibitive to include it anyway. These costs reduce over time, so if we ever manage to get our hands on the footage then it may be one for the future, such as St Johnstone have done. There's a 4 figure fee to the SFA for rights to use the Scottish Cup footage. There's a ton more content we would like to have included on both DVD's, but the more you add the poorer the quality, so it's a balancing act and the decision was made to go more with the content from the games than interviews and chat....some will agree with that and some won't, que sera. One alternative would have been to add a 3rd DVD, which would have delayed production until after Christmas and put another fiver on the purchase cost....or we could have just not bothered producing a DVD at all. The DVD's had to be produced on a tight budget (all edited together by competent volunteer/s, working in their own time) in order to ensure it remained financially viable...so I can understand that people will feel it's not up to blockbuster standards. Such is the nature of things when supporting a club the size of ICTFC where sales aren't going to afford the luxury of investing in bells and whistles. The DVD was very much done as a means of ensuring fans had a record of the season and the club certainly aren't going to be getting rich off the back of it.....if they were, then we'd be doing DVD's at the end of every season!!

People have been crying out for summer football for years, and whist this isn't what is being asked for, it allows the attitude towards it to be tested. I don't think for a moment that these games are going to be packing out stadiums across the country...and I suspect that the SPFL don't expect that either. However, if there's a net gain on what the attendances at early rounds have shown for this tournament in the last few years, then great.....it also improves the case for a summer football season. Yogi got it spot on with his comments to the media today when he said (paraphrasing)..."So what if it doesn't work, at least we're trying and if you never try things, then you can never move things forward."

....and yet, here you remain.

Unattended bags have been a big no no for as long as I can remember and not just a result of recent events in Paris. Whether you agree with the reaction or not, it's incredibly naive to think you can just leave a bag laying there and wander off....regardless of where you are in public.

Not that long ago that Dundee had to resort to raffling their shirt sponsorship, such was the lack of interest!!! On a related note, there's a change in SPFL rules for shirt sponsorship for next season which allows clubs to utilise space directly below the numbers on the rear of the shirt for sponsorship....same size as the area at the top rear.

Had it confirmed that it's a 3pm Saturday Kick-Off. Ticket info will be issued in due course.

Good idea....ICTFC away to Stranraer, the perfect way to increase crowds and fan interest..!!

RiG, the 8 Premiership teams participating in the group stages are divided one into each of the groups....so you're not going to get any more derby games, certainly for top level teams.

Clubs can't confirm until they have been notified of the selections for TV....which has now only just been announced and we're not one of them. Imagine conversation needed will now be very short and would expect it to be 3pm on the Saturday.

Whilst I kinda agree with you, it's not always a straight forward decision. The situation with Hearts at the moment is that they are selling out just about every game and as a result they are giving visiting clubs minimum allocation (understandable if you can sell more to your own fans). If they simply put those tickets on sale on a match day then you run the risk of people travelling and then not being able to get a ticket....which leads to unhappy people outside stadiums (understandably having gone to the hassle/cost of travelling) and possibly some who would be intent on causing trouble. Historically we take a lot of fans to this fixture (500/600+), especially when it falls at this time of year and the allocation wasn't much greater than that. There's also a risk that with the home end selling out, if they just do pay on the day then you end up with the away end being full of home fans desperate to see their team....again, generating risks of unrest. It's a nuisance for those who like to decide on a whim, or may not know if they can attend until nearer the time...it's an even bigger nuisance when games get called off...but not much alternative under the circumstances.

What a difference a few days makes....

No calendars this year. (don't shoot the messenger)

Bloody Cache....!!! Showing on front page of official site now.

Order it this weekend, along with anything else you might want from the club shop, and get free UK delivery....

Correct...the game is the 6th. Club were hoping to change it, but that hasn't been possible. I hope to be up and about again tomorrow, so will see if I can get kick off time info etc.

From memory, he appealed that allegation, won his case and the card was rescinded.

Final proofing being done over the next few days with a view to getting it to manufacturing next week. On track for it being available in early December.

Yogi has said himself that there's been an offer on the table from the club for a while now.

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked. I don't think it is me that is talking total codswallop. The rules of the game state that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." These are two separate things and therefore with respect to feigning injury it is irrelevant whether the player has actually been fouled or not. Equally, any action the referee may have taken against the player perpetrating the foul is also irrelevant. Sho-Silva's did not pretend to be fouled because he clearly was fouled, but what he may have done was to feign injury in a misguided attempt to draw the officials' attention to the incident. If the referee felt that the foul could not have led to the level of injury ShoSilva's actions were indicating, then under the laws of the game he should have cautioned Sho-Silva for feigning injury. I am offering absolutely no opinion as to whether Sho-Silva's reaction was inappropriate or not, all I'm saying is that because he went to ground, the referee had a decision to make which he would not have had to make had Sho-Sliva stayed on his feet. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is only an offence to feign injury in order to win a foul or in an attempt to get an opponent cautioned. If the rule was as per your interpretation, then every time a player was fouled and took an extra roll or held a shin and then got back up, they would be booked....and that doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because the rules don't say it should. In short....Sho-Silva did not pretend he got punched.....he DID get punched and the rule you quote (which is the rule on simulation) does not get any consideration the moment the referee determines that he was fouled. Just because players don't get cautioned every time for the minor types of simulation you quote does not mean that such actions aren't against the rules. By your very flawed logic you might as well say that because players don't always get booked for holding and shirt pulling in the penalty area that the rules don't say that holding and shirt pulling is not allowed. Presumably you can provide some quote or reference to support your opinion that the rules on simulation do not apply if the referee judges that the player actually was fouled? What you are saying is that it is perfectly OK under the laws of the game for a player to feign injury in order to make an offence look worse than it actually was, provided that the referee actually awards a foul. You must accept that whether the referee awards a foul or not, the intention and actions of the player simulating is exactly the same and therefore should logically be dealt with in the same way. Starting to think you're on the wind-up now. How can a player be booked on the rules pertaining to simulation after the referee gives a decision which, in and of itself, states that there has been no simulation. I'm not making an argument that "sometimes players don't get booked for it". I'm saying that players "NEVER" get booked for it....and the reason for that is because the rule is not there to be applied in the strange manner that you are suggesting. The evidence (and logic) speaks for itself. That's my last post on the subject.

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked. I don't think it is me that is talking total codswallop. The rules of the game state that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." These are two separate things and therefore with respect to feigning injury it is irrelevant whether the player has actually been fouled or not. Equally, any action the referee may have taken against the player perpetrating the foul is also irrelevant. Sho-Silva's did not pretend to be fouled because he clearly was fouled, but what he may have done was to feign injury in a misguided attempt to draw the officials' attention to the incident. If the referee felt that the foul could not have led to the level of injury ShoSilva's actions were indicating, then under the laws of the game he should have cautioned Sho-Silva for feigning injury. I am offering absolutely no opinion as to whether Sho-Silva's reaction was inappropriate or not, all I'm saying is that because he went to ground, the referee had a decision to make which he would not have had to make had Sho-Sliva stayed on his feet. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is only an offence to feign injury in order to win a foul or in an attempt to get an opponent cautioned. If the rule was as per your interpretation, then every time a player was fouled and took an extra roll or held a shin and then got back up, they would be booked....and that doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because the rules don't say it should. In short....Sho-Silva did not pretend he got punched.....he DID get punched and the rule you quote (which is the rule on simulation) does not get any consideration the moment the referee determines that he was fouled.

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked.

If Tobi stays on his feet and Oshaniwa doesn't get a red card, then those chastising him for going down would be the exact same people who'd be on here now having a pop for not being "street wise".

ST Holders get a 10% discount on most merchandise within the club shop (as per the info in the ST books)...nothing has changed in that regard. JD Sport are not offering any discount to ICTFC ST holders. Worth noting that the shirt is cheaper than it has been in previous seasons...so swings and roundabouts.

If there's anyone out there willing to make the financial contribution that a shirt sponsor does in order to leave the front of it blank, then I'm sure the club would be delighted to hear from them. That's not a go at those who don't like the current sponsor (or the idea of having a sponsor on there at all). They are entitled to their opinion and to exercise their right to spend their cash (or not) as they see fit....and I personally wouldn't necessarily disagree. Out of interest, and this might make for an interesting poll, would more people pay an extra £15* for a shirt that didn't have any commercial sponsors on them? *number plucked from thin air and just a guestimate of the kinda figure I think would offset the lost income from shirt advertising.