forameus

Oh for...I take it back then, probably the same mistakes as last time then.

That's actually one thing they seem to have gotten right so far with this campaign. They got a massive hard-on for getting the money up front with their season tickets, waving an England-game-shaped-carrot in front of us to persuade. But that meant that later on in the campaign when they had a tough sell of a game, they couldn't do any kind of reduction in prices to attract people who just fancied a game. Even as someone who bought a season ticket, I would've understood if they had reduced prices, but it still would've been shit to end up paying more overall because of their shitty planning. This time around they don't seem to be offering anything like that, which is a good thing. Stay quiet about prices, take each game as it comes and set the prices at a level that you think will give the best chance of filling the stadium, rather than sit there thinking "what's the absolute maximum we can charge?"

5 matches, all built very well, and a little under 3 hours. What a terrible idea, will never catch on

It wasn't really a point for or against the stadium really, just a general comment that it was a really odd atmosphere. Probably didn't help I was sitting fucking miles away from where I usually did, because f**k paying North/South stand prices they were charging for that game.

The Wales example is a good one. GIven that Rugby was/is more important to them as a country, it always seemed like their potential football support was quite fickle. You would get the usual core that would attend no matter what their fortunes, but they had the potential to really ramp up their attendances when they were doing well. For the 2002 qualifying campaign, they started off really strong. 65k and 71k for two friendlies early in the year (granted, second was against Brazil), then 53k for their first qualifier. Then 49, 48, 20(!), and then just 10201 as the campaign wound down to nothing. 2004 campaign was when they got the playoffs, and had strong attendances throughout before they got put out. Some pretty poor attendances over the next few years, with only 30k turning out when Germany visited, then regularly in the low 20s, even down into the teens for qualifiers. Last scheduled match at that stadium that I can see seated 14,505 against Russia (they got pumped). EDIT: Just saw one against England, understandable why they moved that one. After that they moved to Cardiff City's stadium, but even then it took some actual success for them to start packing it out. After 2016, they've just about sold out each game. I don't think we're that comparable to them though. We were never quite as bad as Wales were back then, but I'd imagine even if we did, we'd still be packing in a decent number into a game. If we had something in the 30-40k range, I'd be more inclined to do similar for a new campaign and restructure the SSC. Make sure we sell out pretty much every game, rather than only the big ones. I have never been at a Scotland game with as weird an atmosphere as that GIbraltar game, those ones really need something different than a half-empty echoing Hampden

That's actually not too bad. Will most likely get Mafia 3 downloaded, see if I get to it sometime.

Don't we usually have like 30000 SSC members? I'd imagine with numbers like that, they'd be pretty against putting it in any stadium that doesn't have that many seats. They're thick as shit, but they're not quite thick enough to try and sell a membership while at the same time taking away the one actual selling point it has. That all being the case, we're down to "moving around the country" being "moving between the South side and East End of Glasgow. Yay. Cannae wait for all the chat of how it's "pyoor unfair byraway, Porkheid/Ibrokes got a bigger game than us, purecafflik/proddyconspiracysoitis"

That's what surprises me. I know they don't really care about bad reaction given the money will keep rolling in, but the only thing people with a lot of money like is having more money. Reigns is marketable, no doubt about it, and I think he could end up being more marketable if they do some kind of turn, even if it's towards a more popular heel, then turn him back once people like him again. Just seems like they'd have an easier time across the board doing that - more popular faces going up against him, better matches, seems a far better fit for him as a person.

So what was the chant last night? We Want Roman or We Want Strowman? I've seen reports of both. Vince will be fucking delighted if it's the former, they've finally managed to do it through sheer bloody mindedness.

Looks like Black is probably coming up then. Can't see him winning the title back, and no real point in having him around to feud with anyone they have down there. He can take the pin from Ciampa, go up, and then leave one final match for Gargano with some extra stakes added in the November Takeover. They could just go with Gargano here if they get itchy feet, but I don't think NXT suffers from that as badly as the main roster does. I'd be a bit disappointed if they didn't have one final 1 on 1 blowoff with the nigh-on-perfect way they've built it so far. Only thing is where they go in terms of stipulation - first ever hell in a cell match in NXT? It's allegedly going to be another WarGames in November, so I guess they could just bring the cage down for that and do something a bit different?

Had a bit more time with it last night, but...meh. Struggling to get back into it. Probably doesn't help that I'm jumping back into a save that's fairly far on, and the whole world has changed around it. Space stations are now unrecognisable, and chock full of stuff that isn't really explained. The entire system for crafting/elements etc has changed. f**k it, everything has changed. It's almost gone from being extremely shallow to being too deep, with just vast amounts of stuff added on top of what's there with little substance to it. I don't get a huge amount of time anymore, but I'll maybe start a completely new save at some point, go from there and see if it's a bit better then.

Indeed it is, going by the tapings spoilers.

Haud on guys, they've released what the collector's edition will look like Just fucking look at it. WOOOOOOOOO!

To be honest, I want Reigns to win. At least then you have someone who is there and can run stories with. Lesnar used to be this massive attraction, and I genuinely looked forward to his matches. But now he's put on the same match for what seems like decades, and it's no longer interesting. Frustrating too, because it's clear that if he really fancies it, he could put on a brilliant match. I want them to take a leaf out of NXTs book at the end of Summerslam. Presumably Lesnar/Reigns goes on last, and presumably Reigns finally wins. But even if he doesn't, whatever result you get is going to get booed out of the building. Put up the wee advertising board, which usually means the end, and then just when you think they're about to fade to black... BRAAAAAAAAAAAUN! Or just have him appear, standing behind the winner as he raises the belt. The pop would be massive, and it gets the title away from both shitty options.

Fired up the update last night (assumed it would've done it automatically, but no, 9Gb sloooow download) but didn't get too much time to see it. My last save had me at one of the big starship things, so flew out and down to the nearest undiscovered planet. Landed and found one of those facehugger-egg looking things, previously they'd contain something pretty valuable. Couldn't open it, so maybe you need to shoot it. Did that, and suddenly it's alarms all over the place, as the HUD said something like "swarm arriving". Fucking hundreds of massive cricket things come out of the ground and beat the living shit out of me. That is certainly new.

Yeah, a new stadium for me would be the best option, or at least the one that doesn't have massive negatives (other than funding). But then who really would be interested in getting involved? Where's the benefit? Expect it'll be Murrayfield, and although people from further North than the Campsies will scoff, it'll likely be the end of me going to Scotland games apart from selected ones at sensible times. The thought of an evening kick off and having to pile on at Haymarket for the couple of hours it'll take to get home sounds fucking shite.

While I'm fully supportive of them getting more chances, what would a women-only PPV even look like? Would it be worth watching? They've booked and written themselves into a corner with it. Every PPV is now fourteen hours long, so any show involving just the women would have to be a lot shorter due simply to lack of content. Further to that, outside of a couple of exceptions, there's f**k all story anywhere in the division. Where's the intrigue for any matches outside of "when does Rousey get the title?". So they'll put it on, viewer numbers will be relatively poor, and it just gives ammunition to people to say it's pointless and should never have happened.

Just make all PPVs have the generic names, rather than stip-specific ones. You then either end up with shows like Hell in a Cell wher eyou're shoehorning feuds into it, or Extreme Rules just past where you may as well not have bothered. With generic ones like Armageddon, Unforgiven, No Way Out etc, you actually have some freedom in storytelling. It's much more palatable to me to think that you might end up getting a random hell in a cell match at some B show - or even SS or WM - when the feud merits it, rather than knowing that when October comes around you'll get 3.

It wasn't exactly a serious reply, given it was replying to an absolutely ridiculous point. You're right about the last bit though - there is no easy answer. If there was, I'd imagine even the SFA could manage it. But wooly, non-definitive answers don't really please many. It's got to be one thing in particular. If only it were that simple.

19% of Scottish people considered to be living in poverty. EDIT: Should also say that a (very) quick google had Croatia at 20.5% (in 2012 granted), so not too much improvement needed to knock that extra 1.5% into poverty so we can lead Pep's batshit mental revolution.

What a fucking zoomer.

Yet it doesn't change the fact that we were one slightly-less-shite result away from getting the playoffs. Doesn't really necessitate the scorched Earth approach does it? I don't think we necessarily need to torch the vast majority of our squad just to gain at least two more points. Not being such unimaginative shitebags against Lithuania would have done that.

And all 3 of them had clear and obvious talent, that is far clearer than any option we have. That's why they were involved early. And by the time he was the clear and undisputed best option, he was the first name on the team-sheet. In his early caps he looked utterly lost, and couldn't displace the desperately poor options we had elsewhere. Getting another 15 caps over the intervening years wasn't going to make him into a superstar. Quite honestly no. You're acting like we're physically blocking these superstars from being involved, when it's pretty clear that if we think we spot talent, we do bring them in. Oliver Burke looked like he would be that guy, and it's since turned out that we got it dreadfully wrong and he wasn't even remotely ready. And the shining example of the tired, old "repeated failures" argument has already been mentioned - Wales ripped it up and started again, and were still incredible failures until they weren't. Yes, I do. So would you like to make an attempt at answering this now?

So where are these "gems" then? Again you've mentioned Rashford, Kane and Sterling - they're playing because they're largely the best options. If you can identify the players that deserve to be playing and aren't, then fair enough. But instead it just seems we're getting that there's "probably" players out there, and that "there must be someone better". Where are they then?

Plenty have. You didn't, granted, you said just pick the 6 or 7 guys with most potential. Which would be fine as long as "best" meant better than what we could otherwise field. Which we would likely do if our players were good enough. Our U21s are hardly tearing up trees, in fact they seem to have regressed. I'm just totally against using hope as our driving force. I'm not convinced there's any player currently not getting a game that could genuinely improve us for now, and I would be against playing them in the hope that that changes, because I doubt having 10 games every eighteen months is really going to do much.