DoofersDad

Excellent news. We've now got enough players to enter a 5 a side league next season.

I don't think it suggests or implies everyone 'supports' one of the Old Firm, but as in most either/or scenarios people often have a preference. True. But it's like asking whether you would prefer to have typhoid or cholera. Both options make you sick.

Not sure that's right is it ? The more times a coin comes down tails doesn't make it any more likely to be heads the next time. Yes, but what's the chances/odds of you flipping two heads in a row? After you flip the first head the odds are 50/50 on the next one, saying that though there are far too many variables in football to make a comparison to flipping a coin which can only ever have three outcomes per action. Flipping a coin is a 50/50 chance as long as it is not weighted. Regardless of what has gone on before there should be a 50/50 chance each time it is flipped. Apart from the traditional way to decide who kicks off, football is not down to statistical chance. The longer Morton go without a draw the more likely it becomes that there is a reason why they don't draw games and therefore statistically a draw becomes less likely. I think their proven ability to lose matches will result in them losing yet again.

Dundee have 48 points from 25 games. If they carry on at that rate they will end up on 69 points. To get 70 points we need 28 points from 11 games. 9 wins 1 draw and 1 defeat is a tall order and whilst possible is, I think, unlikely. We need Dundee to falter a bit and I rather think they will. I didn't think I would say this after watching the first County match, but I think we've got a real chance of winning this league.

I think I'm with Oz on this one but it raises a lot of questions. The idea of rehabilitation in general is laudable. Many people offend because they get influenced by a bad crowd or because they are young and don't understand the implications of what they do or things get out of hand and they panic. This can involve quite serious crimes - perhaps even resulting in someone's death - but people do learn to realise that what they have done was bad and they can become genuinely remorseful. Jimmy Boyle was one who did a lot of good work once he understood the harm that his former gang culture life did. However, just as many can be rehabilitated, there are a huge number of people convicted of serious crimes who are released only to re-offend. Killers and rapists who kill and rape again. Often these people have been thoroughly assessed by the experts and are deemed to be safe to return to society. But some slip through the net and therefore releasing them presents a risk to the general population. So who do we give the benefit of the doubt to - the killer who has served his time or the general public? I know it may seem unfair on someone who is genuinely remorseful for the crime they committed but why should they and not the innocent member of the public get the benefit of the doubt? I think there are some crimes which are so horrendous, where the cruelty inflicted by the attacker is so sadistic and/or pre-meditated that there has to be something far wrong with them. These are people who have taken pleasure from inflicting pain and fear on their victims and that sickness will always be there inside them. Venables may only have been 10 when he committed the crime but he knew what he was doing. It seems terrible to say this of a 10 year old but I agree he should never have been released. But where do you draw the line of who should be released and for who "life" should mean life? I don't know. And what do you do with them? If they are never going to be released and they know that, what do they do? Is there any way that they can live a useful life and pay back some of their debt to society when in prison? Where the criminal actually is genuinely remorseful they would want to be of some use. Or should we say that some crimes are such that by perpetrating them the criminal relinquishes their right to life and we bring back the death penalty? Many argue that the measure of a civilised society is whether it still has the death penalty or not. I can't agree with that. If we agree that there are a handful of individuals who can never be released, then it may actually be more humane to them to kill them by lethal injection than to live in constant fear of retribution by other prisoners who may learn who they are and what they've done. It would also save money which can then be spent on rehabilitating lesser offenders and in preventing crime. A truly civilised society is not one which does not have the death penalty, it is one which does not need the death penalty.

I'm all for innovations that will produce more attacking football and give advantage to attacking football but I don't think this is the answer. The through ball bisecting the defence and beating the offside trap is one of the joys of the game and I think that doing away with offside would radically change the way in which defences were organised. What I would like to see done to promote attacking football is to outlaw the practice of defenders shepherding the ball out of play. I would have thought they way this is done was technically obstruction but defenders get away with it. Also it is common practice for defenders to obstruct and hold attackers in the box and they constantly get away with it. If the attackers do something much more minor in the box and score as a result, the "goal" is almost always chalked off. In the English league cup final, near the end, Dunn nearly got on the end of a cross with a despairing lunge and whilst the commentary focussed on his effort I was wondering why Heskey had not made an effort to get it. On the replay it showed Neville, I think, not watching the ball at all but just watching Heskey. When the ball came over and Heskey went to jump, Neville took hold of his arms and physically held him down. This was on the 6 yard line right in front of goal and neither the linesman or the referee saw it? The referee also failed to send off Vidic early in the game when he gave away a penalty and was clearly last man. We don't need radical ideas to improve football as a spectacle, we just need referees to apply the laws of the game as they currently stand.

Not sure how a sale would work. The top floor has now been taken over by the Ness Bridge club on a 5 year lease which would presumably complicate any sale. Does anyone have any further detail?

I can't see those with the financial clout wanting to increase the number of teams if it meant reducing the number of times the old firm play each other. What I can see is the introduction of play offs. On the one hand it can seem very unfair on a side that finishes a clear 2nd only then to see the team that finished several points behind get promoted. However, it does keep interest going so that most teams have something to play for until very late in the season. There is no doubt the concept has been a real success down south, particularly with play off finals at Wembley. Keeping 12 in the SPL with the bottom club going down and 11th joining 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in the 1st division in play-offs would seem to be a very realistic option and one that I would certainly support.

I'm sure you'ld find some excellent books or prints in Leakey's to bring those memories back to life.

It's good news because we need some stability in order to get more players signed up. Personally I am glad it's a one year deal and not three because whilst there has been steady improvement through the season, there are still a lot of question marks over TB's judgement of players. I still maintain that he has arrived at the reasonably settled line up we have now more by default than good judgement. Remember, at the start of the season he was playing Lionel, Stratford, Eagle and Barrowman rather than anyone but Lionel, Proctor, Hayes and Rooney. But credit where credit is due. The team seem to be playing much more as unit these days and playing with more comittment - so much so that we do have a realistic chance of winning this league. The improvement needs to be maintained and I am yet to be convinced it will be. Seeing a slump in form and falling to mid table mediocrity or worse next season would be a disaster if TB and MM were on 3 year contracts.

The best Scottish teams seem to emerge when the English do well. There was tremendous pride in the Scottish team when they defeated England in 67 and became unofficial world champions. In order to act as an impetus in producing a great team again, the best thing for Scottish football would be for England to win the World Cup. Support England - just don't buy any English newspapers!

A bit of unfair Leakey bashing here I think. He is one business man who has tried to do a lot to preserve the charecter of the city centre and we need more like him. Remember he runs a business and not a charity bookshop. Why would you expect him to pay big money for books he probably won't be able to sell and which, if he didn't buy, you would probably give to a charity shop in any case. He has a vast stock of books which are going to be of no interest to the vast majority of people. This means he offers choice to the specialist collector and his is the place to go to if you are looking for specialist stuff. The flip side of the range he offers is that buyers can expect to pay a sensible price for what they buy. If you don't want to pay that price then good luck in finding the same book somewhere else. He also sells the best soup in town. If only there were a few more like Charles we could be replying to this thread saying Inverness has changed for the better.

Fair comment OCG. The important thing you said there is that you do not wish England ill - but sadly there are some who do. I think it entirely reasonable that some would support Brazil or France or whoever because of the style of football they play or because they have players who play in Scotland etc. What is sad are those who would rather support teams from countries with dreadful civil rights records or teams who play dirty and excell only in gamesmnanship. Just what point are they trying to make by supporting teams like that?

But there's a difference. Like it or not, England and Scotland are part of the United Kingdom whilst France is not. People from other countries find it difficult to understand why the four "Home Nations" have separate football teams rather than a single UK team as we do in the Olympics. It is a very strange arrangement and really we all ought to be behind a single UK national side. But for some reason the UK is allowed to field 4 sides and as part of a so called "united" kingdom, it is not unreasonable to expect that the bonds that unite the 4 nations would mean that we would support each other. As things stand, England is a part of the same political state as Scotland and by supporting England you are supporting a team that is part of the same political state you belong to - that seems a reasonable thing to expect people to do. If Scotland was an independent nation then things would be different. Believing Scotland should be independent is a good reason for not supporting England but is not a good reason for wanting anybody else but England to win. Of course the English media go OTT on the the hype and that can be irritating - but so what? Let them get on with it and good luck to them. If Scotland had a team with any chance of a good showing on the world stage there would be just as much hype. If you can't wish your neighbours well it is a little bit sad. After all, we're more than neighbours -we share the same house!

Whilst sympathetic to a "fat tax", it is difficult to see how it would work. If you charge the obese for hospital treatment then how can you be sure the illness they present with is related to their obesity? Would you not also discourage them from getting treatment when really needed? But I'm sure we all agree that the proposal to standardise portion size is just plain stupid. A large sportsman or farm labourour will need a far higher calory intake than a frail old lady for example. In my view, standardisation would be discriminatory in that it would impose different proportions of calorific requirements for different people. In any case, why shouldn't we enjoy pigging out once in a while for a treat? Mind you, one advantage of standardising portion sizes would be that in some of the more up market establishments we might actually get a reasonable helping on our plates. I can think of one or two places where a visit to the chippy is required following an evening's "fine dining".

It is difficult for the club to know what to do when the weather forecasts are so unreliable. Yesterday I checked the BBC 5 day summary forecast for my post code and it came up with it being sunny for all 5 days - not a hint of a cloud, let alone any white stuff falling out of one. Now they have weather warnings of 50cm of snow! A feature of this winter is how consistently the met office have got the forecasts wrong. It would be interesting to know if the club rely on the BBC forecasts or whether they contract with some other agency. If it saves them putting the USH on for a couple of nights then it would be money well spent.

[/ To me that reads as though Niculae wanted to go and the club were not standing in his way. The fact that clubs from various parts of Europe had submitted bids suggests that someone other than ICT had put word around that he was available. It will cost the club to appeal the FIFA ruling but I feel it is a bit too easy just to say the appeal is being lodged to save face. If that was the motive then to lose the appeal would result in more loss of face than ever. If the club do not feel they have a strong case then they would save face and earn a bit of respect by saying "OK, we got it wrong, we have to accept it, cut our losses and move on". The club will be taking the decision on legal advice. It would be interesting to know whether the club has taken legal advice on this independent of the legal advisers who drew up Niculae's contract in the first place. It would also be interesting to know the basis on which the legal advisers are paid. It would be very wrong if lawyers were being paid to persue a hopeless case resulting from a poorly drawn up contract if they themselves drew up that contract and recommended the appeal. For now, I feel there is so much detail we do not and cannot know that we have to accept the club's position on this and support this decision. However, should the club lose the appeal, we can expect a full explanation from the club on the affair.

Maybe this is a stupid question as I am not up with the technicalities here, but is there any reason why covers cannot be used with the USH? Covers on their own will protect depending on the material, thickness, temperature, extent of wind and the time the freezing temperature persits. But if used with USH then presumably they would help prevent the heat escaping and therefore might allow thawing even when the air temperature was a lot colder than the usual limit for USH. It's the same principle as heating your house - if you have no insulation then it is hard to keep the house warm and hellish expensive to do so. As is often the case, the problem on Saturday was only with a small part of the pitch sheltered from the sun, so depending on the state of the pitch it should be possible to target certain areas for heating and/or covering. If this dual approach is possible then covers could allow the USH to be on for a minimum of time thereby saving money.

I appreciate USH is very expensive to run so can I suggest 2 further alternatives in order to avoid this type of farce and inconvenience to travelling supporters and teams? Firstly, the Board should hold a meeting on the pitch. The hot air generated should thaw the ground in no time. Secondly, they could invest in some insulating covering for the pitch. This should be easy to acheive as they seem to be good at cover ups.

I take it all back. Watched this the other night. Is this good or what! http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_ga...010/8517392.stm

Fair comment above about improved home form. We have also tightened up defensively with only 2 goals conceded in the last 6 league games. We are the form team at the moment with 14 pooints from those 6 games. There's no reason why we can't win this league!

But our away form is better than our home form. 22 pts from 12 games away compared with 15 from 10 at home. We need to give the team the support at home that they get away.

Whether the OP is using his own words or not is hardly the point. The OP clearly feels that money fraudulently claim by people could be better spent. It's a serious topic but the culprit of this link gave us all a laugh - how on earth did he think he could get away with it? http://www.walesonline.co.uk/videos-and-pi...91466-21542051/ As far as I'm concerned these folk might as well be going into the houses of the old and infirm and stealing money from their wallets and purses. It all boils down to the same thing. They should be treated as theives because that is what they are. And before any one accuses me of being a Daily Mail reader, let me say that exactly the same applies to those who evade their taxes.

I would have thought there should be scope for signing promising youngsters and getting them out on loan to Highland League clubs. This would suit both clubs and the lads themselves. Whilst being associated with the first team squad would be a great experience for them, what the lads will really want to be doing is playing regular competeive football. If we don't sign them up then they will get opportunities at some level or other and any who develop and show real promise are going to get snapped up by someone else. What a waste to nurture good players through the early teens only to hand them over to our opponents as soon as they mature. There seems to be no prospect that we will ever be a rich club that can buy success so we need to do all we can to develop and give opportunities to local lads who have ambition to play for their local team. Nurturing local talent should be a priority for the Board.

I agree. There's not much to get excited about watching one athlete after another bsically doing the same thing but of course the nature of the events and courses mean they have to be timed events - it would either be impossible e.g. luge or insanely dangerous e.g downhill, to have folk actually racing against each other. To me, it therefore lacks the excitement of the summer athletics. Also, there's only so much you can do on snow and ice and some of the events really seem a bit too contrived to be awarded Olympic status. Having said that, you can't help but admire the skill and courage of these competitors. I don't know if you saw a fascinating documentary earlier in the week with Michael Johnson the great double olympian meeting up with some of the great downhillers to see what makes them tick? He commented that he knows what it is to train hard and to experience the great buzz of competing and winning but he didn't risk his life every time he competed. And, of course, an athlete sadly died in practice in the luge this week. So despite the tremendous skill and bravery of the top athletes, I will give it a miss - until the curling comes on! Now there is a sport where one team competes against another head to head with them altering tactics and demonstrating their skill in response to what their opponents do. And, of course, we might just win a medal! Don't know that I would pay to watch it but it beats Coronation St.