DoofersDad

I was surprised at just how poor the Dons were. Shaky at the back and offering little going forward. Can't see them mounting a meaningful challenge to Celtic on that kind of form. We were excellent in the first half and looked much more positive than we often do. I think Storey's intelligent running off the ball gives Christie more scope and as a result, Christie had a really good game until getting himself unnecessarily and perhaps harshly sent off. Second half was not as good and we seemed happy to soak up pressure and be far less positive. Knowing that Aberdeen needed to press us, I would have liked to see us try to take the game to them. Polworth was perhaps the one player to struggle today and taking him off earlier and bringing Mutombo on to provide a dual threat with Storey might have been interesting. As it was, we barely had a sniff of a chance in the 2nd half but managed to hang on to win a game we could have won rather more convincingly on the day. But all in all it was a great performance and gives encouragement for the rest of the season. Next up, the clash between the two sides in the division with the longest unbeaten runs!

Yup.. Obviously been brushing up on his shot stopping.

We'll only keep the 4 game unbeaten run going if the game is postponed! Instead, let's keep the unbeaten run going and turn it into a 5 game unbeaten run.

Perhaps it is a BBC journalist who has moved over to Sky?

Not sure that is irony - it is just a bit OTT in expressing some points that most would surely agree with. Most people in Scotland outside of the OF are heartily sick and tired of the dominance of the two big Glasgow clubs over the years and it is a pretty dismal prospect to think that next season The Rangers will likely be in the top flight and may well be title contenders. So it really is good for Scottish football that a resurgent Aberdeen are themselves beginning to look like genuine title contenders. Of course I want ICT to win the league but if it is not to be us then I would be absolutely delighted if it was Aberdeen rather than Celtic. As for the former ICT players who now play for the Dons - well, good luck to them! Why on earth would they not want to move on to a club with more prospects, more money and a bigger fan base? We should be proud that our club has developed and brought these players on, grateful to them for the contribution they have made to this club and glad they didn't go to Celtic instead.

No it shouldn't. As you correctly state, Sneckboy has expressed the figures as games per red card and even if a red card is infrequent, the measure is still one of frequency. So, someone might ask "How frequently did Andy Barrowman score for us?" to which you might correctly reply "Very infrequently".

I get to very few away matches but hope I may be able to get to a few more in future. When I have gone I have sometimes combined the trip with something else so have traveled by car or train, although have occasionally traveled on the club bus. On those rare occasions I have always found them to be an excellent way of getting to the games. I like the convenience of being dropped off close to the ground and I have always found a friendly, welcoming atmosphere on board, helped by the folk "in charge". £20 seems a very fair price to me and I would certainly recommend the buses as they are currently run to anyone wondering whether to go or not. Personally I think it is important that the buses drop folk off close to the ground at a reasonable time before the game but without folk having to hang about for more than an hour before kick off. I appreciate that many folk like a drink or two before a game but equally, there's many that don't. I'm happy either way but the priority for club buses must be those who simply want to get to the game and then get home. It would be quite wrong to expect them to hang around for an hour or so just because others want a drink or two. The buses need to cater for families, older folk, folk with some level of disability and others who simply want to watch the game and go home. If people want to engage in activities in addition to the game then it is up to them to make their own arrangements.

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked. I don't think it is me that is talking total codswallop. The rules of the game state that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." These are two separate things and therefore with respect to feigning injury it is irrelevant whether the player has actually been fouled or not. Equally, any action the referee may have taken against the player perpetrating the foul is also irrelevant. Sho-Silva's did not pretend to be fouled because he clearly was fouled, but what he may have done was to feign injury in a misguided attempt to draw the officials' attention to the incident. If the referee felt that the foul could not have led to the level of injury ShoSilva's actions were indicating, then under the laws of the game he should have cautioned Sho-Silva for feigning injury. I am offering absolutely no opinion as to whether Sho-Silva's reaction was inappropriate or not, all I'm saying is that because he went to ground, the referee had a decision to make which he would not have had to make had Sho-Sliva stayed on his feet. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is only an offence to feign injury in order to win a foul or in an attempt to get an opponent cautioned. If the rule was as per your interpretation, then every time a player was fouled and took an extra roll or held a shin and then got back up, they would be booked....and that doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because the rules don't say it should. In short....Sho-Silva did not pretend he got punched.....he DID get punched and the rule you quote (which is the rule on simulation) does not get any consideration the moment the referee determines that he was fouled. Just because players don't get cautioned every time for the minor types of simulation you quote does not mean that such actions aren't against the rules. By your very flawed logic you might as well say that because players don't always get booked for holding and shirt pulling in the penalty area that the rules don't say that holding and shirt pulling is not allowed. Presumably you can provide some quote or reference to support your opinion that the rules on simulation do not apply if the referee judges that the player actually was fouled? What you are saying is that it is perfectly OK under the laws of the game for a player to feign injury in order to make an offence look worse than it actually was, provided that the referee actually awards a foul. You must accept that whether the referee awards a foul or not, the intention and actions of the player simulating is exactly the same and therefore should logically be dealt with in the same way. Starting to think you're on the wind-up now. How can a player be booked on the rules pertaining to simulation after the referee gives a decision which, in and of itself, states that there has been no simulation. I'm not making an argument that "sometimes players don't get booked for it". I'm saying that players "NEVER" get booked for it....and the reason for that is because the rule is not there to be applied in the strange manner that you are suggesting. The evidence (and logic) speaks for itself. That's my last post on the subject. I take it that is your last post on the subject because you cannot produce any wording in FIFA or SFA regs to back up your ridiculous position? To say that a player will only be dealt with for an offence depending on whether another player is dealt with for a different, albeit related, offence is patently absurd. _Although I do accept there are things FIFA and the SFA say which are patently absurd!) The rule I quote above states that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." Clearly he was not pretending to have been fouled because we can all see that he was struck, but the other and quite separate part of the simulation law is about feigning injury. As far as I am aware, the law simply refers to feigning injury and does not differentiate between feigning injury when the referee awards a foul and when he does not. I may be wrong - but if anyone thinks I am, please provide the evidence! Let's be clear, I am in no way accusing Sho-Silva of simulation. All I am saying is the fact he went to ground gave the referee a decision to make under the simulation rule. In my view he made the right decision by not cautioning Tobi. Bottom line here is that, as a general rule, just because you actually have been fouled does not make it OK to feign injury. I have backed up my view by quoting the FIFA rule on the subject. It appears that CaleyD thinks referees have been told it is perfectly OK for players to feign injury as long as they actually were fouled but offers no evidence to support such a bizarre point of view. By the way, I thought Sho-Silva was a breath of fresh air when he came on. He was hardworking, enthusiastic and positive in his approach - an extremely welcome addition to the club.

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked. I don't think it is me that is talking total codswallop. The rules of the game state that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." These are two separate things and therefore with respect to feigning injury it is irrelevant whether the player has actually been fouled or not. Equally, any action the referee may have taken against the player perpetrating the foul is also irrelevant. Sho-Silva's did not pretend to be fouled because he clearly was fouled, but what he may have done was to feign injury in a misguided attempt to draw the officials' attention to the incident. If the referee felt that the foul could not have led to the level of injury ShoSilva's actions were indicating, then under the laws of the game he should have cautioned Sho-Silva for feigning injury. I am offering absolutely no opinion as to whether Sho-Silva's reaction was inappropriate or not, all I'm saying is that because he went to ground, the referee had a decision to make which he would not have had to make had Sho-Sliva stayed on his feet. Sorry, but you are wrong. It is only an offence to feign injury in order to win a foul or in an attempt to get an opponent cautioned. If the rule was as per your interpretation, then every time a player was fouled and took an extra roll or held a shin and then got back up, they would be booked....and that doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because the rules don't say it should. In short....Sho-Silva did not pretend he got punched.....he DID get punched and the rule you quote (which is the rule on simulation) does not get any consideration the moment the referee determines that he was fouled. Just because players don't get cautioned every time for the minor types of simulation you quote does not mean that such actions aren't against the rules. By your very flawed logic you might as well say that because players don't always get booked for holding and shirt pulling in the penalty area that the rules don't say that holding and shirt pulling is not allowed. Presumably you can provide some quote or reference to support your opinion that the rules on simulation do not apply if the referee judges that the player actually was fouled? What you are saying is that it is perfectly OK under the laws of the game for a player to feign injury in order to make an offence look worse than it actually was, provided that the referee actually awards a foul. You must accept that whether the referee awards a foul or not, the intention and actions of the player simulating is exactly the same and therefore should logically be dealt with in the same way.

The bit I have highlighted is total codswallop. The moment the referee makes the decision that Oshaniwa has committed a foul, then Sho-Silva's reaction does not come under consideration...unless he retaliates. He could have gone down and rolled all the way to the centre circle, it would have still not resulted in him getting booked. I don't think it is me that is talking total codswallop. The rules of the game state that a player should be cautioned if he "attempts to deceive the referee by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled." These are two separate things and therefore with respect to feigning injury it is irrelevant whether the player has actually been fouled or not. Equally, any action the referee may have taken against the player perpetrating the foul is also irrelevant. Sho-Silva's did not pretend to be fouled because he clearly was fouled, but what he may have done was to feign injury in a misguided attempt to draw the officials' attention to the incident. If the referee felt that the foul could not have led to the level of injury ShoSilva's actions were indicating, then under the laws of the game he should have cautioned Sho-Silva for feigning injury. I am offering absolutely no opinion as to whether Sho-Silva's reaction was inappropriate or not, all I'm saying is that because he went to ground, the referee had a decision to make which he would not have had to make had Sho-Sliva stayed on his feet.

Whether he went to ground or not should be irrelevant with respect to whether the Hearts player got sent off or not. If the officials saw the punch, regardless of how hard it may have been, then the player should be off. If the officials did not see the punch then the player should stay on. Going to ground after the punch was thrown cannot change whether the officials saw the punch or not. If the victim of a punch goes to ground then the referee needs also to consider whether that is a reasonable response to the punch that was thrown. If the referee decides it wasn't then the "victim" might also receive a card. Best to stay on one's feet IMO but we do need the clubs and the footballing public to expect firmer action from referees and the SFA to address all the cheating nonsense off the ball that has become such an integral part of the modern game.

Good to see Meekings and Vincent back and new boy Storey certainly justified his starting place. Getting Draper back to his usual position gave us more bite in midfield and helped make Tansey a bit more effective again. With Tremarco back at Left back Williams was freed up to a more attacking role and with the new lads coming in there is now serious competition for places despite the on-going injuries. But for me, the most pleasing thing about tonight's performance was the way we defended the lead. After a spell of Hearts pressure we made a couple of attack minded substitutions and a proper game of football broke out. Rather than just sit deep and absorb the pressure (or, far too often, fail to absorb the pressure) we went looking for a 2nd goal and were rewarded with an excellent finish by Storey. After a dismal first half we got some fan friendly footy and the crowd responded accordingly. Let's have more of the same, please!

I hope Vincent hasn't got the same agent.

Don't think he was in the slightest bit interested in playing for us.

PerfICT, Sneckboy. You normally make such sensible posts. What's happened? It seems young Ryan's departure has you all in a tizzy Let's get a bit of "Perfsnecktive" here. Nobody is saying Ryan is not a good player and nobody is saying his departure won't make us weaker in the short term. We would only be stronger if we replaced him with a better player - which is probably unlikely. Making a comparison with Messi is even more absurd than most of the hype (although no doubt very tongue in cheek). According to the stats on the website, Ryan has scored just 9 goals during his career here. Some way short of Messi and someway short of his old man as well! He is a good player with the potential to be a very good player but the level he has reached so far is broadly in line with other decent midfield players we have had and who have moved on e.g. Cowie, Rankin, Hayes, Robson. Of course I would like him to have stayed, but we always knew he would go sooner or later. So be it. He's moving on so let's just accept it and recognise that most of the players who contributed to the club's success last year are still here (albeit on crutches). It is maybe time to give them a bit of appreciation rather than trying to hype up Christie to God like status compared to the rest of the team. Thank you, Ryan. Goodbye and good luck.

Do you go to games? Do you? There is a player of the year poll on this site for folk who do go to matches, so let's have a look at what they think. We have had 3 home league games this season and there have been a total of 101 votes for MOTM. Christie has received just 5 votes for MOTM and 9 votes as runner up. This compares with Williams with 39 votes for MOTM and 16 as runner up. Interestingly, one of our much maligned new signings, Mutombo, has12 votes for MOTM and 22 for runner up. I think this evidence supports that Ten4 has it just about spot on. Christie is good, but he has only just "emerged" and has only rarely had a game where he has been very good. Some of the hype about him really is very OTT.

I'm sure he is very excited by this move but his reported comments really do illustrate the problems we face. We keep saying that one of the major factors in keeping gates down are the number of people who are local born and bred but who support the OF in preference to their local team. One can understand folk who developed an allegiance years ago before ICT existed, but youngsters like Ryan have grown up knowing nothing other than their local team being in the Scottish League system. In Ryan's case it is much worse. His Dad played for ICT, managed ICT and still works for ICT. Ryan himself has come up through the junior ranks of ICT and it is ICT, right from the Chairman down to everyone else in the club, who has supported him, helped him and nurtured him in becoming the player he is today. If anyone should be an ICT fan through and through it is Ryan Christie. If he isn't first and foremost an ICT fan, then can we really complain at anyone else for not being one? Maybe I am being a little unfair on the lad. He is, after all, paid to play football and not to communicate and the media will encourage a Celtic fan story line. But his sentiments as reported does the club no favours at all. Hopefully some more considered comments will be reported and in future Ryan will declare to the world that whilst delighted to be a Celtic player, he is first and foremost a fan of the club that has made him what he is - Inverness Caledonian Thistle.

I know we are all disappointed that Ryan has been sold and that we didn't get more for him but that does not mean that Celtic have done anything wrong in the way they have gone about their business. You may think Celtic paid too little for him but where were the better offers? Why on earth should Celtic pay more for a player than the selling club is prepared to accept? Our Board were under no obligation to accept any offer so if you are unhappy about the sale have a pop at the Board for accepting the offer and for not having Ryan on a longer contract, or have a pop at Ryan himself if he was unwilling to move anywhere other than Celtic. Exactly what aspect of the deal (as much as we know of it) shows unfairness and a lack of respect on Celtic's part? We may wish the league to be more even but it is what is and Celtic, quite rightly, will look after their own interests first and foremost. They know they are going to win the league at a canter and their focus is on Europe. But bear in mind that if Celtic are successful in Europe then we all benefit. Had Celtic reached the group stages of the Champions league then there would have been a considerable payment to all the SPL clubs. Let us hope that next season Ryan's contribution can help Celtic reach the Group stage and benefit comes to us and the rest of our league as a result.

No they haven't. They have simply done a good bit of business. Nothing wrong with picking up a bargain on the last day of the sales.

Presumably whilst the transfer window shut at midnight there is nothing to stop clubs signing out of contract players at any time. There is maybe a bit more value to be got there and Ofere would be a good shout in my book. But really! Billy left us in January since when we've come 3rd in the league and won the cup FFS! Surely this is a club which has a reputation for developing players and providing the opportunity for some exposure for players looking to develop and last season's success should make us a more attractive proposition than ever before. In addition, we should have a shade more cash than ever before so I think folk are absolutely justified in expressing concern about the current situation. Of course, it may be that the new signings come up trumps and we wish then well, but from what we have seen of those who have played and what we have seen of the history of today's signings there is nothing which gives any indication that they will be able to succeed at this level. Let's face it, scoring just 2 or 3 goals a season for the last few seasons for teams at the wrong end of the English system does not fill one with much anticipation. We have a problem, and the fact that this thread is now well over 800 posts says it all.

Hmm. That would explain continuing frantic activity to get a striker on board. If it is £600k with Ryan back on loan for some or all of the rest of the season then it is not a great deal unless there are clauses for significant future payments for Ryan's future appearances or subsequent transfer. I suppose an option could be that Ryan leaves straight away and we get Stokes on loan but I agree that it looks unlikely that he will come here.

Apparently he's been out on loan to Newport County - I wonder if it is Terry who has recommended him

If we do get Stokes on loan then I think on balance this is not a bad deal at this point in time. You might argue that we should have had Ryan on a longer contract and you might argue that we should have been able to find a half decent striker by now, but that fact is we have managed neither of those things. What this deal gives us for this season is to retain Ryan's services and we get a decent striker who seems to be most prolific when playing for Yogi. Stokes may not be a regular in the Celtic first team but he's still only 27 and should be a regular scorer for us. That in turn should help in getting a few more through the turnstiles. £500k may not sound a lot for a player of Ryan's potential but one needs to remember that he's far from the finished article and hasn't had too many outstanding performances (for instance, superb against Celtic in the Semi last year but rather ineffective in the final). And let us suppose that an English club had come in with a £1million bid and no loan clause - what then? Apart from the fact that Ryan may not want to move to England, we would have had no Christie and no proven striker and precious little opportunity to use the cash to fill those gaps. This way we keep one good player for a season, get a much needed quality striker for a season and have £500k in the bank which can be used to help with extending contracts of other players we want to keep. Clearly we also need to start planning for next season when we are likely to have neither Christie or Stokes. The cash may help us to do some more permanent business in January.

Have to agree with that one. Probably a sentimental decision from Butcher to give his buddy one last big deal after all their years working together. Richie delivered for Butcher, and Butcher delivered for Richie. Seems fair enough, although maybe not such good business from the club's perspective! To be fair, he certainly didn't look 'past it' before his injury, so he might still come back into the team and make a significant contribution. Since this thread is about looking on the bright side - we've had a terrible start but we aren't isolated at the bottom. In fact, one win would have us knocking on the door of the top 6. We've also now seen enough of the SPL to discern that most of the other teams aren't any better than us. actually Bucher had left the building when Foran got his contract. In fact I think it was also signed before Yogi arrived! Asked whether he was going to sign a contract extension Foran had said that he was waiting to see whether Butcher would sign an extension and then he would decide what he was doing. Far from signing a contract extension, Butcher decided not to honour his current contract and went elsewhere and almost immediately Foran signed his long term contract . Read into that what you will.

Mutombo's dismissal sounds utterly stupid but on the plus side it does perhaps indicate a level of passion. Mutombo's suspension might also force the manager in giving some game time to one of the youngsters. I recall a few years ago when Butcher consistently preferred Barrowman to Rooney. Barrowman was injured and Rooney had his chance. The rest is history.