DoofersDad

At least we are spared a semi against an Edinburgh side played in a "neutral" venue in Edinburgh.

I believe they have rules they have to follow and they have made them to follow the same principle as if a game has to be abandoned. If you are winning 5 - 0 and it is abandoned with 5 minutes to go, you start at 0 - 0 and play the game in full. But surely, only the SFA would think they actually need rules just in case they **** up something as simple as pulling 8 balls out of a bowl. Given the long, proud history of the Scottish Cup, why oh why can't they just do it the traditional way with numbered balls? It would then be almost impossible for anything to go wrong - unless, of course, someone from the SFA was drawing the balls out, in which case there would be a high probability that they would pull out more than one at a time.

"I've got the Celtic ball - now where's the Morton one?"

One must give great credit to East Kilbride who were well organised, composed and fit enough to keep going to the end. Having said that, Celtic were utterly pathetic and managed only 5 shots on target. Both goals were very scrappy. Whislt Celtic never looked like losing, had one of those scrappy goals not gone in (or hand Griffith's handball been spotted) or had East Kilbride been able to sneak one, it would have been interesting to see how Celtic coped with the increasing frustration. A Celtic loss would have been one of the greatest ever upsets, not just in Scottish football but in world sport. In truth, we really weren't that far away.

Surely the whole purpose of CJT is to have more togetherness between club and fans. As this is fans website, surely the first place to put notice of the AGM (and anything else, for that matter) should be here. By all means, use other social media outlets to spread the word, but keep this site as the default site for all communication - and inform all members that this is the case. Even if I had received notice of the AGM (which I would have been interested in attending) I would have been unable to go on the 19th. However, can I make a suggestion that a separate forum for CJT be set up on this site so that all members can be informed when appropriate? A further advantage is that it would facilitate discussion on anything CJT wanted the views of the wider fan base on. In addition, a more visible presence on this site may encourage a few more folk to volunteer to help out. The concept of "togetherness" requires good communication but this is not something CJT seems to excel at. I have just been on the CJT website out of curiosity and even their own website gives no mention of the forthcoming AGM In fact, it gives little mention on anything and the most recent event detailed under "member events" is a hospitality package for the game against Kilmarnock - on 11th August 2012! I don't wish to appear critical because I appreciate that people give up their own precious free time to get involved in these activities. My suggestion therefore should be helpful in allowing CJT to communicate with fans, be they CJT members or not, simply by posting on here. Nobody should then have any reason to say they have not been informed about something.

It is actually pretty worrying. Apart from Sho-Silva we have departed company with Lopez, the promising Callum Ferguson appears to have disappeared from the face of the earth, young MacRae is not ready for this level yet and Foran is not going to regain the speed and sharpness for a striker role even if he can re-establish a place in the side. Despite all this, Ali Sutherland has been put out on loan to Brora which does suggest that Yogi was confident of bringing someone in. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago he seemed quite upbeat about the chances of getting someone in, perhaps on loan, by the end of January. Clearly nothing has happened and with Fisher injured, there is really nobody else in the squad who can lead the line. Sure Mutombo can score goals, but his strength seems to be playing wider and creating space by taking defenders on. We are far too heavily dependent on Storey. I am not yet at the stage of starting a "bring back Andy Barrowman" campaign, but I am definitely worried.

A: He plays through the pain.

Exactly. It does not mean "wants". There is a big difference. Suppose I'm in the pub but have to drive home and someone offers me a drink. I might want a pint of IPA but I will choose a soft drink. Greg chose to stay at ICT. That is not to say that he is not content to be here (till the end of the season at least), but my bet would be that if the Dons come back in the summer with an offer in line with any contractual stipulation, he'll be off. He's probably my favourite player so I hope he stays. Anyhow, whatever went on behind the scenes, Greg remains an ICT player for now and I am sure will continue to do the club proud through his efforts on and off the pitch.

It is because if we sign players in positions where we already have adequate cover, there is less money available to attract players into the positions where we don't have adequate cover.

SP It's Doofer's Dad. I don't know how many Doofers there are out there, but before Doofer's Mum gets the rolling pin out, I can assure you I have only fathered one of them!

No. I don't buy it. The statement says that Tansey "elected" to stay and thanked him for his "integrity, honesty and loyalty to the club". When you think about it, this is very strange language to use. If the agent acted without Tansey's knowledge then you can be sure that Tansey was made aware of what was going on as soon as anybody on this forum got wind. If he didn't want a move to Aberdeen then he would have been on to his agent and the club in a flash and any "deal" would have been dead early in the day. However, if the agent's approach to Aberdeen was an inappropriate approach, then when the club met Tansey later in the day to try and persuade him to stay, Tansey might have revealed information which made it clear that his agent had acted inappropriately. After all, if the club was aware of any inappropriate action on behalf of the agent then negotiations would have stalled at the initial offer. Tansey might have told the club that his agent knew he would be interested in a move to Aberdeen if it meant more money but was not aware any approach was in any way inappropriate. The club may well have told him that in the light of the inappropriate nature of the approach, a deal was not really on or they may simply have offered Tansey a bit more dosh to stay. My scenario fits the wording the club used in their statement. It doesn't say that Tansey wants to stay, it says he elected to stay. And if it was a question of his agent acting without his knowledge, why would the club statement make any reference to his integrity and honesty? If he wanted to stay and his agent was playing silly beggars, what on earth would he have to be honest about! And if he had been persuaded by his agent to go along with an approach which (perhaps without Tansey being aware) was against the rules, then part of the persuading him to stay may have been the very sound advice to get shot of the agent. My take on this is that Tansey would like a move to a bigger club but was persuaded to stay on this occasion. I would also think that Tansey may have seen his agent's activity as flying a kite to an extent and that he is actually perfectly happy to stay here for the time being. Hopefully his form for the rest of the season will mean that any offers in the summer will be more substantial than Aberdeen's.

What odds of a County cup double?

I agree but there should be at least an acknowledgement to a request for info. A short response along the lines you say would be appropriate - without the "knob" bit.

This doesn't ring true to me. Yogi has gone on record before saying that if a player wants to go he won't stand in their way. To then resign because the Board failed to stand in the player's way would be an untenable position. The BBC article seems to suggest that McInnes and Yogi were negotiating as though it was as good as a done deal. I read that as Yogi being accepting of the fact that the player was leaving. If he expected Tansey to go, might not that be the reason agreement was reached with not one, but two new midfield players? What seems more likely to me is that our Board felt Aberdeen had obtained information about the contract inappropriately and therefore felt Aberdeen should pay above the release clause amount. The Board would have been right to insist on a meaningful sum here to give the message that they are not to be seen as a soft touch. Given the lateness of the approach there was then not time to thrash out an agreement. I suspect that Tansey would now be an Aberdeen player if his agent and Aberdeen FC had not tried to shaft us. I think a general policy of not standing in a player's way provided we aren't shafted in the process, is a sound basis on which to do business.

No, but it's good for getting a chip of your shoulder.

That's an excellent statement from CJT which makes it clear that actions taken were for issues of a rather more serious nature than simply singing when told not to. It also makes clear that the issue is now being managed in what appears to be a thoroughly appropriate and professional manner. Let us hope that as a result of this, youngsters will continue to be able to travel to away matches with CJT if they wish but will have an understanding of and respect for the necessary codes of behaviour. It is just unfortunate that a day's silence has allowed a relatively divisive dialogue to develop. A simple statement in response to the OP to say that CJT were aware of the issue, would be investigating it and would report back later would have been sensible. Such a quick response could also have given contact details for anyone with any information relevant to the investigation. It would then have been entirely appropriate for the mods to have closed the thread in order to prevent unwarranted speculation and accusations whilst the investigation was ongoing. It looks like there should be a lot of learning points to come out of this episode.

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.