CaleyD

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From memory, he appealed that allegation, won his case and the card was rescinded.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

Confirmation that the new kit is available from JD Sports Inverness Store from tomorrow. Kenny Cameron (Chairman) has asked that I pass on his apologies that, due to circumstances beyond the clubs control, the on-sale date has been delayed until now and to say that he has had assurances from the highest level that there will be no repetition of this going forward.

So where is all this money coming from to pay for your grand plan?

That's not speculation...that's calculated risk/decision making and I agree with the theory of what you say. What is being advocated by HC is that the club spend money they don't have and/or increase annual budgets on the basis of one off windfalls.....something that we, as fans, have been critical of in the past when it looked like the club may be following such a course of action (e.g. Niculae).

Speculate : To take a chance on something, or some course of action, without any firm evidence to support it. Yeah, that sounds like a really intelligent way to run a club/business

The Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC 2015/16 Kits is now available to pre-order at JD Sport by going to http://www.jdsports.co.uk/featured/Inverness/

The club use one of, if not the, top legal firm in the country for preparing contracts (among other things)....I'd happily wager everything I have that if they've cleared something for inclusion in a contract, then it's legally sound.

I don't think anything has changed, really. Longer deals tend to be offered to players who came in on short contracts and earned them...and that still appears to be the case. It's just that the turnover hasn't been that high the last few seasons and we've been more used to seeing extensions than new signings. There's also this "options" thing, which I don't like the phrasing of....especially when it's the club who holds the option. Instead of 1 year + 1 year option to extend, it really should be 2 years with option to break after 1 year.

I'd love it if we had 10% of the finance and resources that Celtic have....as it would be nearly twice what we have at the moment!!

If memory serves, Dundee posted loses of somewhere around £3 Million in their 2014 year end accounts...some people never learn!!

You may be on to something....sneaking in round the back without anyone noticing is their speciality.

The gate wasn't left open....they cut the chain to gain access....twice!!

They are gone....and in one of those "couldn't make it up" moments....they have now set up camp in Dingwall.

Pretty sure I had a "Named Person" type scenario when I was at school....in the form of a Guidance Teacher. As I understand things, this new legislation is basically stating that every child is entitled to that, which is no bad thing, IMO. I'm pretty lucky to have grown up with a loving and caring family who looked out for me and put my (and my siblings) welfare above everything else. However, I had an issue with education which I found slow and boring and it often led to me getting into bother....either as a result of the boredom or my frustration at teachers who weren't providing me with what I needed. I was actually on my last warning at school. Not for anything major, but I was deemed disruptive and had a sizeable disciplinary file for "mischief making". If not for my guidance teacher intervening then I very much doubt I would have been allowed to obtain the education I did. Should my parents have been able to have sorted things out? Perhaps, but all they ever got told by the school was that I was a nuisance, causing disruption etc. My behaviour backed that up and they never got the opportunity for insight into the cause. My Guidance Teacher, however, did have insight into what was going on and was able to communicate with other teachers on a different level than was afforded my parents. He managed to get to the bottom of things, got me sorted out and I went on to get terrific grades (and plenty of them). They even shredded my school disciplinary record, but I suspect this was as much through embarrassment at having not dealt with the underlying issue in order to prevent it, than as any "reward" for me. In the grand scheme of problems that children can have, mine probably wasn't the worst....but if having a named person can help put right a few of these things for others (or prevent them in the first place) then I'm all for it.

3067