DoofersDad

I agree with you that folk shouldn't be slandering CJT. The difference between us is that I also don't think you should be slandering the youngsters. Your friends in CJT haven't exactly justified your faith in them today with that rather worrying tweet which was posted and their extraordinary refusal to make any comment on the matter on this forum. I really think it is inappropriate to jump to any conclusions regarding the behaviour of the youngsters until CJT finally break their silence.

If that's true then it suggests Tansey was keen on the move. Never mind tensions between the clubs, I doubt it will do much for togetherness in the dressing room here.

What on earth could possibly be of such importance to the CJT Board that nobody can afford the time to come on here or even just make a statement along the lines of - "The Board of CJT note the contents of this thread with concern and will be issuing a full statement in the morning"?

But unless you have some insider knowledge that you are not sharing, you don't even know who issued the alleged ban. You also admit that you don't know what the ban is for. For their part, the youngsters have claimed their ban is because they were singing and throughout this lengthy thread, nobody has given any indication that it was for anything else. But despite all of this you have come to the conclusions that the youngsters deserve to be banned simply because you trust the decision makers! Are you the only person on here who can't see what an appallingly prejudiced attitude that is? I seem to recall that Neville Chamberlain once trusted the Nazis and that led to a bit of a stooshi as well. Rather than write yet another post on here, it would be helpful if you could get in touch with your honourable chums in CJT and ask one of them to tell us what actions they have taken and why.

Thanks, Ryan. Welcome to the club!

This precisely the kind of attitude that so antagonises so many people. You state you weren't there so can't possibly comment and then in the next breath find the youngsters guilty of behaviour justifying a ban simply on the basis of the fact that you know people in CJT! I wasn't there either, but what I know is that the OP raised a very serious issue and that nobody from CJT has as yet replied. That is disappointing, shall we say. I also know that people should only be banned if they personally were doing something which they had repeatedly been told not to do, or if they did something which was so serious it justified an immediate ban. For a ban to be justified it would seem to me that something serious would have to have happened, the nature of which we are currently in ignorance. It really is important that someone from CJT makes a statement about how many people they are banning from the buses and the reason for that. As a club we desperately need more youngsters coming to games and making a noise and we need the club establishment to work with them and encourage their presence. On the face of it, the reported ban will have the opposite effect and the silence from CJT is clearly not helping.

The print media has no public service obligations but instead are businesses which need to make a profit to survive. They print what they think their target audience wants to hear. More folk support the old filth than ICT or County and therefore to focus on celebrating Highlanders would not be good for sales. It's not going to change. The same can't be said for the BBC who should be rather more objective than they are these days. Now that there are so many media options available to the public, I guess they feel they also need to give their audience what they want to hear as lower viewing figures will no doubt have a significant impact on their funding.

Contracts are agreements between 2 parties.

So let's get this straight. A "release clause" is a clause we put into players' contracts so that another club can come along and buy one of our player's for less than they are worth? Personally, I think the Aberdeen style of play is ideally suited to Tansey's strengths. It really sounds as though this is a mere formality now, but I hope I'm wrong.

Regulations prohibit passengers from unnecessarily distracting the driver's attention. If the operator is telling the club that singing distracts the driver and it's either no singing or no bus, then no singing it is. As above, one really needs to know a bit more about what has been said by who. Off course, banning should only happen if individuals have been told not behave in a particular way and they do so regardless. I would certainly hope that the club would do all that it can to encourage youngsters to travel to away matches, particularly when these youngsters have been doing so much to help create a decent atmosphere home and away with their enthusiasm.

Well, East Kilbride must be grateful they have avoided County in Scottish Cup

The general pattern of demographics in the Highlands is for rural depopulation and an increase in population in Inverness. I am sure there are more Ross-shire folk moving into Inverness than the other way round. I'm one who bucks that trend as I have a Dingwall address.

The inconsistency between referees is for the SFA to deal with as is the almost universal failure to apply some of the rules of the game. For instance, there is sometimes so much holding in the penalty area that it looks more like an American football scrimmage and yet it is rare that penalties are awarded when defenders are manhandling opponents to stop them getting to the ball. That could be dealt with at a stroke with instructions to match officials supported by retrospective action from the compliance officer. This lack of leadership at the top must put folk off from taking up refereeing and as a result the general standard is poor. But I wouldn't wish to be too critical of referees because I do think that some of the criticism they get for incorrect decisions is very harsh. Far too often they are pilloried for errors which can only be seen to be errors in hindsight and sometimes with straight white lines drawn across the TV screen to judge an offside decision or with repeated slow motion footage from different angles relating to a foul. Sometimes it would be nigh impossible for a referee to be certain an infringement has occurred, whilst at other times, just like the rest of us, they make honest human errors. What is needed is for the ruling bodies to take steps to ensure that the laws of the game are applied consistently. Referees making honest mistakes should be supported against criticism. Surely, only by consistent application of the laws of the game can you really identify those referees whose performance is poor and who need to improve if they are to officiate at the top level. Can't see anything positive happening with the current jokers at FIFA and the SFA.

HT 0-1 FT 1-2 ICT Roberts Opp Sow Time 32 mins

He's scored 15 for Barnsley this year. I trust Barnsley tell Leeds where to shove such a derisory offer.

SFA rules state 3. Awards to Players, Officials and Match Officials The Association shall present a medal or a souvenir in such forms as the Board may decide to each of the players, to each of such substitutes as are eligible, the Manager or Head Coach and to the match officials, in the Final Tie. It seems, therefore, that the SFA Board can decide which players might be eligible but does not define this in their rules. In contrast, the FA rules state:- (b) In addition to the FA Cup, The Association shall present 30 medals to playing staff and officials of both Clubs in the Final. This means that English Clubs have absolute discretion on who they award their medals to. A player in England who was banned for the final but who made the kind of contributions throughout the competition that Warren and Raven made last year would undoubtedly get a winners medal. I seem to remember that not so long ago, the winning club in England gave one of the medals to the kit man who had kept all the kit in good order for over 30 years - a lovely gesture. It does make sense to allow the clubs to decide themselves who deserves the medals rather than being dictated to by a bunch of power crazed little Hitlers. Having said that, the power is ultimately in the hands of the member clubs of the SFA. Surely they could push through a change to the rules on this?

Wouldn't we all? But the point as it relates to Pyro has nothing to do with slavery. Quite the opposite in fact, because anybody who rebels in this context risks losing some of his (or her) freedoms.

...but we didn't and it isn't. We are now facing the very real possibility that County could finish above us in the league and progress further than us in both cup competitions. Hopefully that dreadful prospect will motivate the manager and the team to play routinely with the purpose and intensity shown in that last 20 minutes. In the meantime, I am in the "good luck against Celtic but may you get thoroughly gubbed in the final" camp.

I think there are a few mixed messages in here. Urging youngsters not to bring pyro into the ground is not being against the youngsters, it is actually being supportive. It is simply reminding folk that bringing in pyro risks criminal sanctions being taken and nobody wants that to happen. To some though, the use of pyro will be seen as an act of bravado - an act of rebellion against authority. At the end of the day, if they get a criminal record, they will only have themselves to blame. Regardless of what the dangers may or may not be and what happens in other countries, the bottom line is that it is illegal here. If you don't like the law, campaign to change it, but don't break the law just because you don't like it - it aint worth the risk. One of the sad things about this debate is that it sidelines the one simple thing that really would make a difference to the atmosphere in grounds - the reintroduction of terracing. It has been absolutely great to see the youngsters jumping up and down and hear them chanting at the front of Section E these last two games - it has brought an atmosphere that the football on display abjectly failed to do. But the irony is that the youngsters would be able to do that far more safely if the bloody seats weren't in the way. There is also the issue that standing at the front has annoyed a good few folk who had to move to other seats because their view was blocked - that could be a real problem with a bigger crowd. There is no doubt that properly designed terracing supported by common sense crowd control is perfectly safe. By having everyone in that area standing and allowing a bit of movement within the area it really helps to bring together those who want to create a noise. The reintroduction of terracing is long overdue and would make a far bigger impact on the creation of atmosphere within grounds than the relaxation of legislation on pyro could ever do.

I think you are generalising too much. People from across the socio-economic spectrum like to watch football and whilst some people can comfortably afford anything the match day experience offers, there are others for whom just paying the admission price represents a concious financial decision. The pay what you can initiative gives this second group the opportunity to attend the game and support their team. The club should be grateful for whatever they can afford and for any vocal support they give. But the pay what you can initiative also allows others who are maybe less inclined to attended regularly but could afford it if they were. This group of folk are more likely to pay a little bit more for their ticket and to spend on the peripherals. If what they experience makes it a good day out then they will likely be back. It therefore seems to me to make clear sense to have pay what you can matches from time to time. Of course, a key ingredient in this is to make sure the main event inspires folk to come back for more. Sadly that ingredient was missing on Saturday and it will now be even harder to persuade folk to give it another try after witnessing that.

Well, he's employed by the club so I think at the end of the day the answer to that is "yes"! I'm not for one moment suggesting that the club should approve what he says, after all, part of the role is to communicate with the media. But he does have to be accountable for what he says. There may be a clause in his contract about not criticising the club in general or any individual employee in the public domain. In any case, if the Board perceive him to be making statements which are not showing the club in a good light or are in any other way felt to be inappropriate I would expect the Chairman to have a word in his ear.

It really is great news. For such a key player to make such a long term commitment to the club can only be a positive move in encouraging others to stay. With Meekings and Tansey also signed till the end of next season we have 3 top players who provide a solid base to build the team round. Hughes' management skills will now be seriously put to the test in seeing how many of those out of contract at the end of the season will want to stay. Top of the list for me would be a couple of the keepers, Draper, Doran, and Vincent - although there are several others I would also want to retain. I would also love to see Storey sign but his situation is less straightforward.

Surely this evidence tends to suggest that we do have the players to match the better teams in the league, but are tactically inept against the poorer sides.

Nothing ironic in it all. Quite the opposite. These are two very different kind of issues. It is perhaps strange that the club is very reluctant to release certain information which one might think should be in the public domain, whilst the manager makes public criticisms of players which should best be kept behind closed doors.

Bear in mind that season ticket sales are up this year on the back of last season. Crowd figures include season ticket sales whether or not season ticket holder actually attended or not.