Renegade

We do have a tradition. It's called "Beating County".

Was there not a poster on here a while ago, who was going to write and record a new club song? Is was going to be called "Coming Home" or something?

Never looked like scoring today I'm afraid. The Killie pitch was like a potato field and ICT seemed to lose direction after the injuries to Foran and Shinnie. Other that, I thought Jones looked a cut above the rest today, and I was also impressed by Charlie Taylor. Felt again though that we could have done with an impact player like Pepper on the bench though. All in all, a disappointing end to a disappointing week.

Dean McDonald > No-one He was rubbish!

HT - Killie 1-0 ICT FT - Killie 1-2 ICT KIllie 1st scorer - Heffernan ICT 1st scorer - McKay Attendance - 3,918

Aye he was. He was on trial for a wee while a few months beforehand with talk he was going to sign. Nothing was heard about him for about three months until he appears on the bench without warning or any inclination that he had signed. Nothing was also heard a few weeks later when he was punted. Supposedly he was on trial at one point with Bayern Munich and linked with a host of other clubs over the last couple of years! I also have the distinction of being one of the few ICT fans to ever see him play, in an U20 match just after that Hearts game. Seriously, he was trash!

Talk lately is that Tokely's off to Brora, with the rest of the ICT retirees!

HT - Saints 1-1 ICT FT - Saints 1-2 ICT Saints 1st scorer - Teale ICT 1st scorer - Warren Attendance - 3,279

Gavin Morrison has gone on loan to Elgin City for the rest of the season.

GBH is a good player. Liked what I saw of him in the U20 games. Shame but understandable why he never not a chance.

Would Liverpool not be able to confirm why Wilson wasn't played or if he was suspended?

If that is the case though, would Hearts not have discovered when Wilson served his suspension? If they did, why don't they come out and say it?

Taken from the official SFL League Cup rules (apologies if this has already been posted) - Says clearly that is the team's responsibility to make every possible assessment as to whether or not their players are eligible and says that an offending team may be disqualified. There's no way we can let this lie.

Why should this Liverpool v Arsenal game have anything to do with it? He was sent off in the Scottish League Cup Final. He played in the next league game. He was not banned for that. He played in the next cup game. He was not banned for that. He played in Liverpool's first League Cup game. He was not banned for that. Why would this English Premier League match even need to come into question, when he played in two cup competitions and the league matches following his sending off? It must then be Saturday's game he should have been banned for.

So let me get this straight. Hearts thought there might be a problem in the eligibility of one Daniel Wilson. The cup organisers gave the go-ahead to play him in the game, because they "couldn't find the piece of paper where it said he was banned". Why did Hearts just end it there? There was nothing to stop them from looking at every possible avenue to find out whether or not what the SFL had told them was correct. They could even have gone back after finding that he had a suspension to serve and shouldn't be played, upon which the SFL would discover their mistake, announce him as suspended and no-one would have batted an eyelid. Instead they've waltzed on and left this huge mess behind them that could be fatal for their cup hopes. There must be something done and a replay of the game is the minimum we should settle for.

Can't understand if this attitude of "we should just give up". Had we done that with the 10,000 seater rule in 2004 we might never have gotten into the SPL!

I seem to recollect something like this happening a few years ago. I can't remember if it was a Scottish Cup or League Cup game, but one of the teams in one of the earlier ties (I think one of the teams was Stenhousemuir) fielder a cup-tied player. The game was later replayed and this was after one of the teams had won the first game 7-0 or something as well!

I remember it being reported when Rangers tried to re-sign Daniel Cousin that he would miss the first game after he signed due to having picking up a suspension in his final Rangers game. They must then carry over for league games - but is it the same for the League Cup?

Some are saying he served his suspension in Liverpool's first league game after he signed. Not sure how true that is though.

Funnily enough, I was just reading the SFA's League Cup rules to see about this kind of thing. Would the ban apply to all competitions (Ie - the Scottish Cup as well), or just the League Cup? The rules I was reading don't seem to say.

It's alright actually. Most people have accepted that ICT were beaten by the better team, didn't rise to the occasion and should have taken their chances.

Are Hearts paying their wages though? Some loans deals have the parent club paying them.

I'm just trying to think about who took a penalty in the Stenhousemuir game. I know Foran missed one, but I think Draper and Warren took one as well (might be wrong though, but I'm pretty sure the former did). I've no problem at Roberts taking a penalty per se, but perhaps having him take one of the earlier ones would have been a better option. He is a more forward player after all (doesn't always make a good penalty taker mind, hence why I never wanted to see Tade taking one) and must have volunteered. Perhaps having a more experienced player like Jones or Andrew Shinnie would have been better off saving for the fifth, particularly with the pressure that came with the pivotal final penalty.

Similarily, had Butcher done that and Esson had a made a couple of saves and ICT had gotten to the final, we'd all be heralding an astute and pivital tactical move. Esson's penalty save record is far better than Reguero's (who's been nowhere near saving any of them) and making such a change isn't much different to taking one outfield player off in the final minute for another player, thought to be more likely to score in the shootout. It's a team game after all. Changing keepers for shootouts has been done in the past anyway. Martin O'Neil did it once at Leicester bringing the 6"8 Australian keeper Kalac on, because he'd have more chance of saving some. Apparently as well, in South America team's are known to go into knock-out games with a match keeper and a shootout keeper on the bench ready if the situation arises. It could be the difference in a winning a game or not.

I think it was the nerves myself. ICT looked nervy throughout, which leads to the inevitable hoofs up the park.