DoofersDad

Si, oui, ja, ndiyo. I don't care where the players come from. I care about how good they are. I agree that it would be great to have more local youngsters in the team and I have posted on other threads about how important it is to have a good youth system, but they should only be in the team if they are good enough. If you want ICT to succeed at a high level you have to accept that we need to get the best players we can. If you feel you only want to watch a club that has local or perhaps scottish players then I suggest you go watch Clach instead. Some would argue that with free movemment within the EU these days, none of the squad are foreign. It is just that some are more local than others.

Fer f*cks sake Terry. Why didn't you tell me you were only joking.??I've just signed for the gudgies!

Seeing as it was Doofer who started this topic and he obviously feels so strongly about it, I thought I ought to find out what he was on about as I've been a bit out of touch with the news recently. I'll perhaps be a bit controversial here but I think Evans has a strong case for appeal and it would not surprise me to see him get acquited in due course. For those who don't know, the story goes like this. (Children and those easily offended should stop reading now!) Evans and friends of his, including another footballer, Clayton McDonald, booked a hotel room and went out seperately looking for a girl to take back there. They were not together at the time when a very drunk young woman literally fell out of a kebab shop into McDonald's path. McDonald seized the opportunity and took the 19 year old back to the hotel. He texted Evans to say he had "got a girl". McDonald then had sex with the girl whilst 2 other men watched and videoed the events through the window! Evans then arrived and claims he asked the girl if he could join in. He says she consented and McDonald backs that up. The girl says she can't remember what happened. McDonald then left and when he had finished with the girl, Evans left the room and then left the hotel by the fire escape. The girl awoke in the morning to find herself naked in the bed and with little recollection of what had happened during the evening. She was distraught and made her way to friends who encouraged her to go to the police. Both Evans and McDonald were charged with rape. McDonald's verdict was announced first and he was acquited. Evans shared his friend's jubilation at the verdict but then was shocked to hear his own verdict of guilty and the judges sentencing of 5 years prison. Now, Evans is clearly a nasty peice of work and his behaviour on the night in question was dreadful, however, that does not stop us having some concerns about the conviction and sentence. Remember, that we live in a country where to be convicted the prosecution needs to prove a case "beyond reasonable doubt". There is no room in a legal decision to moralise about someone's behaviour. Let's look at some facts here. The girl could not remember whether she consented or not. The girl was not physically harmed. There was no witness to suggest that the girl did not willingly go to the hotel with McDonald. Whilst she was clearly drunk, there is no suggestion that she was too drunk to speak or otherwise indicate that she did not consent to sex. In sentencing Evans, the judge said that he should have been aware that the girl was too drunk to give consent. In other words he is saying that even though she may well have told Evans that it was OK for him to have sex with her, that does not actually constitute consent. And if there was not valid consent, then it must be considered as rape. The judge may have considered Evans should have been aware that she was too drunk: but was he? Whilst Evans' behaviour is totally reprehensible, I cannot see how the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the sex was non-consensual. How many vodka and cokes does it take for "yes" to mean "no" regardless of how willing the person appears to be? Even if the judge is correct on the matter of law and Evans' actions were technically rape, there is no evidence to suggest that Evans had any intention to do anything without what he understood to be her consent. In that case, a sentence of 5 years seems harsh to me when you consider similar sentences are handed out to criminals who set out to rape and deliberately hurt and terrorise their victims. Many perpatrators of vicious pre-meditated assults which leave victims disabled and scarred for life get sentences less than 5 years. The bizarre thing here is that if Evans was guilty, then why was McDonald adjudged not to be? After all, he is the one who took advantage of the girl and helped her tottering back to the hotel. He, much more than Evans would have been aware of how drunk she was. A further twist here is that Evans is white and McDonald is coloured. Just to add a little more controversy I wonder what the equalities groups would be saying if it had been Evans who had picked up the girl and McDonald was the one who got 5 years? From a morality point of view you may think Evans got what he deserved - but have we got justice? By the way - liked the joke Bauhaus!

Absolutely agree that all should have moved on - but have they? All I'm saying is that it is not fair to slate the manager for not being there today if you don't know why he wasn't. I'll be first in the queue to criticise if it turns out he simply snubbed 2 of the greatest servants this club has ever had. Focus should be on those 2 and not on Butcher.

Does anyone actually know why TB was not there? He is clearly not Grant and Russell's favourite person and they may have expressed a wish that that he not be present. In any case, the focus of the day has to be on Grant and Russell and his presence would inevitably detract from that. Whoever initiated his absence I am sure it was agreed by all that it was for the best.

Stand back everyone, I'll handle this one. Ummm... He signed the absolute dross that aren't fit to pull on the shirt?? He's responsible for the tactics from which he attempts to get the best out of the crap he's signed? He absolutely will not, nor will he ever accept blame for his part in the worst season in recent memory? (To clarify, as harrowing as it was to be relegated, this season is much, much worse than that one.) Quite why you feel the need to defend the guilty party in all of this is bewildering. I was listening to TB's post match interview just now and was actually suprised by how often he said that he must take the blame. It was almost a season's worth of accepting the responsibility. He was also saying that whilst he takes responsibility he is pretty bewildered by the lack of cutting edge in the final third because he sees day in and day out in training what the players are capable of but they don't produce it on a match day. He made the point that in a lot of games we have had good possession but have lost games because we have not been able to create and take enough clear cut chances and because of errors at the back which have been punished. That is probably true but it is his responsibility to sort it. There appears to be the first public recognition of that but perhaps a lack of knowing how to. Personally I feel that many on here are being harsh on the players. In general they may be playing poorly but I don't think that means they are poor players. I would be more worried if we simply weren't getting the possession. To me the big thing that is lacking is confidence. At the moment all the players seem to be on edge and as a result they either snatch at opportunities or lack the confidence to shoot. And they are on edge at the back because they know if they make a mistake the lack of goals up front means it is likely to be an expensive one. Things seem dire at the moment but If we could just find that spark to bring back the confidence then the goals will come players would be less on edge and we would find the football flowed a bit more. The key questions for me are whether it is TB's management style and tactics that are contributing to the lack of confidence in the first place and is he capable of finding the spark that is needed?

We could still get relegated this season but I somehow can't see Dunfermline winning all their remaining games. I think Butcher did a great job a couple of seasons ago when we went on that run to win the SFL and then we had a pretty decent season last year on our return to the SPL equaling our best ever finish. That is a decent track record. This season has been very disappointing. There have been flashes of real potential and hope but these have quickly fizzled out and he does not seem to have any realistic plan to address the problems. We had real hope of a top 6 finish not so long ago and are probably safe now only because other teams have also been poor. Much of the blame for this poor performance must rest with Butcher. I can accept one poor season on the back of 2 good ones but next season must be better. The Board also has a responsibility here. I don't advocate interference by the Board but it is reasonable to expect them to see there are a few things that need addressing and to expect Butcher to explain to their satisfaction what he proposes to do about them. If we are clear at the bottom come mid November (and current form suggests that is very likely) then he should go. I appreciate that it will cost us to cut his contract short but a drop to the SFL will cost even more.

I neither watched or listened to the match so can't comment on the perfomance myself but it sounds pretty poor. I have been one of many who has expressed the view that some of this season's poor results and poor performances can be put down to the injuries we have had throughout the season. We still have Hogg and Shinnie out but that is only 2 long term. It seams that as players have come back and the injuries have eased we've got worse rather than better. Has Winnall got a "no play" clause in his loan deal? We're losing and the manager takes Hayes off and replaces him with Proctor! I actually have a lot of time for Proctor but when we need goals and you have a striker on the bench, why replace an attacker with a defender? I worry about the tactical nous of our manager at times. Perhaps that knock on the head all those years ago did more damage than was realised.

Please yourself who you watch next season but do us a favour and don't call youself a supporter. Supporters stick by their team through thick and thin

Being an Olympic champion has a great ring to it. The point of being an Olympic champion is to demonstrate that you are the best in the world at your sport. There are millions of dedicated athletes in a wide range of sports - some popular and some less so - who train hard for years in the hope that one day they can mount that podium, have a medal put round their neck and have their national anthem played whilst they stand there proudly as Olympic Champion. The Olympics come round every 4 years and these athletes target their training to be able to deliver their best performance for the games. Everyone else is doing the same so if you win Olympic Gold you truly can say at that time, when it matters, you are the best in the world. But football! The World Cup is the Olympics of football and is the competition people aspire to win more than any other. The Olympic title proves nothing and is an irrelevance as far as football is concerned. Worse, awarding gold medals to those who have little hope of ever winning the World Cup devalues the honour of winning gold in other sports. A further problem is that football is such a popular sport that even with the top teams and top players not on show there is considerable media coverage. This means there is less coverage of other sports and that is a real shame. Many of these sports get little coverage at other times and to see them played at the highest level makes a nice change. I won't be watching the Olympic football and don't give a t*ss who is in team GB.

I really don't follow your logic here. Far from wanting to deny youngsters the opportunity to progress I want a reserve league because I think it is a better environment for them to progress. They will play in a competetive environment with and against more experienced professionals and as a result will learn more and be better prepared when their chance in the first team arrives. I accept that there is more chance of youngsters being released if we have a reserve league rather than an under 19 or under 20 league but in reality the ones being released will be those not good enough to be in the reserve team and they are hardly likely to ever make it to the first team. Better for them to be released and find their level and get a regular game than be kept on with false hope at a bigger club. In some cases they will blossom late and if so, the regular competetive football at a lower level will help in that. The problem with an under 19/20 league is that in order to have a big enough squad to ensure you can compete in the league you are forced to keep some youngsters on who are never going to be good enough. That is in nobodies interest. Whilst I would love to see local youngsters break through to the first team there is no room for sentimentality here. What is required is a mechanism to ensure that there are players in all positions who are capable of doing a job for the first team when required. I believe a competeive reserve league is the best way to acheive this. I come back then to the point that a reserve team can be what you want it to be and I would expect that most clubs, ICT included, would want that to include any local talent deemed promising enough to be potential first team material.

Don I'm not sure whether you genuinely misunderstand what I am saying or merely choose to do so. Just in case it's the former, the point I am making is that ICT and its fans have made a number of parallel and equally laudable efforts to raise cash for their club so it really does appear a little selective - churlish even at this highly successful time for them - to criticise Ross County's commendable enterprises whilst rightly supporting and endorsing ICT's. On your second point, I should perhaps simply echo John F Kennedy's famous 1963 quote of solidarity with Berlin when he visited the city during the height of the Cold War in 1963 and comment "Ich bin ein Staggie!" as a mark of appreciation of Ross County's achievement of SPL football for themselves and hence also of double representation and derbies for the Highlands. Charles, you are being far too objective and sensible. It is really quite unbecoming of a journalist This is a fans' forum where anything done by the local rivals is fair game for instant vilification whilst if we do the same thing it becomes an action worthy of endless praise. Don't take it too seriously.

Last time I paid £20 to ICT I didn't get anything for my money either.

Couldn't they have paid to use another ground somewhere in between? Say Dingwall? I understand the owners there are trying to raise a few pennies.

Can't agree with that. You will still have to interpret whether it did actually hit the hand or arm which might be just as hard to determine as whether the contact was deliberate or not. But in any case, why should you be penalised just because one of the opposing team hits the ball straight at you from point blank range? It would lead to serious dilemas in defensive walls. As we all know, players stand in a defensive wall with hands protecting their assets. If you are in a wall within the penalty area and the ball comes thundering towards your hands, what do you do? Leave your hands where they are and concede a penalty or quickly remove them and expose your assets to a rapid devaluation? We don't want stupid rules. we just want sensible refs. It shouldn't be too much to ask.

Interesting. Presumably there are 2 clubs who would only want to join if you needed a 41 - 1 majority to change things. At least it gives us a glimmer of hope for change and it gives Neil Lennon something else to rant about.

Interesting little article here. http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/4524354.stm Basically the laws of the game only refer to deliberate handball but there is a general understanding that if the player deliberately holds his arms so that the arms may block the ball whether it be "hand to ball" or "ball to hand", then that can be construed as deliberate handball. It really shouldn't be that difficult in most situations but we see penalties given time after time when there is no way the contact could have been deliberate. FIFA should be giving a clearer steer on this, but even without that I really do think that the referees should use a bit more common sense and stop ruining games just because the ball happens to strike a defender's hand from time to time. If they paid a bit more attention to the defenders' hands that are constantly pulling shirts, gripping arms and generally getting far too intimate with the bodies of the opposition attackers then we would have penalties when the laws of the game have actually been infringed and a generally more open game would result.

Seriously????? I did not know that!!!!! Like you said, i actually physically shudder at the thought! If he thinks he has it tough at Celtic with the referees not giving his team decisions then imagine what he would be like given our year of refereeing circus acts! His reactions would no doubt be completely over the top but at least he would be justified in having a rant

A reserve team can be what you want it to be. If you wan't to stuff it with older guys who are not good enough for the first team then that is the manager's choice. If you want to stuff it full of 16 year olds that's the manager's choice as well. In practice most will use it to bring youngsters on, provide match practice for those returning from injury and provide opportunities to keep the fringe players match fit. The balance will depend on the circumstances throughout the season.

Someone said on Radio 5 live that Lennon had retweeted a comment from a fan that it was time for Celtic to get out of the SPL and away from its corrupt officials. That presumably would be to England and to officials who give Man Utd yet another penalty for Young diving against his former club and Chelsea a goal that none of the Chelsea players even claimed had crossed the line. You're welcome to head South, Neil - but please take your cheating pals in blue with you when you go.

It is because a reserve league has those advantages for clubs with small resources that it has been done away with. The old firm have (up till now) been able to buy good new players to strengthen their team and given that the rest of us can't, they want to prevent us from developing our own talent. What the OF want the SPL want.

If Rangers newco (Whiter than Whyte FC) apply to join the SPL to take Glasgow Rangers place, there is absolutely no reason why the SPL should have any obligation to accept their application and every reason why they should not. They have an agreement with the SFL that admittance to the SPL is via promotion from Division 1 of the SFL and that is the only route that any club has ever been admitted to the SPL and the only route any club will ever be admitted. If Whiter than Whyte FC apply to join the SPL the SPL should be telling them that they will only accept applications from the Champions of the SFL first division. If there is a vacancy in the SPL as a result of a club failing and not reforming then I understand the arrangement would be that the club which finished bottom would not be relegated rather than the club finishing 2nd in the SFL going up. Whilst I don't agree with that, it does mean that the teams in the SFL 1st division have a better chance of promotion the next season because they are not competing against the club which would otherwise have been relegated. However, that is denied to them if a newly formed club is allowed into the SPL without going through the usual route and as a result, a club is relegated. It is even harder, of course, on the club that is relegated. I hope Dunfermline have got some good lawyers on board. It seems to me therefore that the SFL and the clubs that make up its membership should be strongly objecting to any suggestion of Whiter than Whyte FC being admitted to the SPL. I don't know what all the rules and agreements are but I would be interested to know if there is any clause which allows for admittance to the SPL other than by promotion from the SFL. All a bit hypothetical I know because when do Rangers and the SPL play by the rules in any case? At least I feel better for venting my spleen.

It was said tongue in cheek!

I note you didn't make the same comment in relation to my earlier comment about a certain Andrew Barrowman!