Will we top the group?

[forameus]

Just now, Savage Henry said:

Going biblical is entirely possible.  That genuinely would put the SFA in a bind, but like you, I don't think they'd be willing to admit their mistake - a mistake which is obvious to everyone to see.

If we did lose both games, and the SFA did what everyone expects them to do (f**k all) then I'll start to feel even more sorry for McLeish than I already do.  He seems out of his depth, doesn't seem to be particularly respected by the players, and doesn't appear to be entirely well.  But the SFA will happily keep him in the hotseat going into the qualifiers, while the heat rains down.  If the SFA themselves were in any way accountable it wouldn't be so bad, but they'll stay in their jobs up in the expensive seats, watching the very public flogging of the guy they put there, until there's absolutely no hope left, at which point they'll let him go and try and find their next square peg.

[Estragon]

We'll get four points.  A horror draw in Albania, followed by a win at Hampden - and it won't be enough for some to shut the f**k up.

[TurbineTon]

1 hour ago, Estragon said:

We'll get four points.  A horror draw in Albania, followed by a win at Hampden - and it won't be enough for some to shut the f**k up.

Why should it be though? Results aside, everything about Scotland since GS left (and i wanted him to go) has been a fucking shit show. 

We've managed to make as much, if not a bigger,  arse of ourselves off the field lately.  Players calling off, a drunk manager and his assistants waffling shite, the whole semi-final debacle and yes its related because it contributes to the whole perception of the SFA, the hampden debacle etc etc etc. 

 

What a fucking horror show we are. 

[kenny131]

More call offs last night and today something seriously not right in the camp.....big eck must be swigging the 12yr old malt in full view

[forameus]

17 minutes ago, TurbineTon said:

Why should it be though? Results aside, everything about Scotland since GS left (and i wanted him to go) has been a fucking shit show. 

We've managed to make as much, if not a bigger,  arse of ourselves off the field lately.  Players calling off, a drunk manager and his assistants waffling shite, the whole semi-final debacle and yes its related because it contributes to the whole perception of the SFA, the hampden debacle etc etc etc. 

 

What a fucking horror show we are. 

Yeah, have to agree.  I would usually be in the camp of the guy you're replying to, and always reticent to just moan at anything and everything, but I'm not sure the SFA and the entire setup have done anything right since Strachan left.  A change was needed, but from the minute he left it's been f**k up after f**k up.

While I know it means absolutely nothing to say, serious questions are going to need to be asked at every level should we not top the group.  It wasn't going to be a slam-dunk to do so, but we are making it far, far harder than it has any right to be.

[TurbineTon]

2 minutes ago, forameus said:

Yeah, have to agree.  I would usually be in the camp of the guy you're replying to, and always reticent to just moan at anything and everything, but I'm not sure the SFA and the entire setup have done anything right since Strachan left.  A change was needed, but from the minute he left it's been f**k up after f**k up.

While I know it means absolutely nothing to say, serious questions are going to need to be asked at every level should we not top the group.  It wasn't going to be a slam-dunk to do so, but we are making it far, far harder than it has any right to be.

 

Unfortunately, it'll be another case of "Sweep Sweep" and everything will be shrugged off. 

 

It really makes me rage so hard at the utter contempt we're treated with. The SFA are just like tories; fucking scum.

 

Disband them with immediate effect and give us something with the utmost transparency 

[Estragon]

 

1 minute ago, TurbineTon said:

It really makes me rage so hard at the utter contempt we're treated with. The SFA are just like tories; fucking scum.

Disband them with immediate effect and give us something with the utmost transparency 

What does this actually mean?  In what way have you been treated with contempt by the SFA?

[TurbineTon]

1 minute ago, Estragon said:

 

What does this actually mean?  In what way have you been treated with contempt by the SFA?

^^ Part of the problem. 

[Estragon]

1 minute ago, TurbineTon said:

^^ Part of the problem. 

Please don't speak to me like I'm providing you with some opposition, I just want to know how you feel the SFA have treated you with contempt.

Make a compelling argument and I might agree with you.

[TurbineTon]

3 minutes ago, Estragon said:

Please don't speak to me like I'm providing you with some opposition, I just want to know how you feel the SFA have treated you with contempt.

Make a compelling argument and I might agree with you.

The whole of Scottish Football is treated with contempt by them. Time and time again. Year after Year. 

 

Flip the argument on its head - how are we NOT treated with contempt and like shit by them?

[Estragon]

Just now, TurbineTon said:

The whole of Scottish Football is treated with contempt by them. Time and time again. Year after Year. 

 

Flip the argument on its head - how are we NOT treated with contempt and like shit by them?

Unsurprisingly vague.

[TurbineTon]

6 minutes ago, Estragon said:

Unsurprisingly vague.

Are you really that deluded that you can't see the obvious? 

[Estragon]

3 minutes ago, TurbineTon said:

Are you really that deluded that you can't see the obvious? 

It's so obvious, and yet you can't describe it to me?  In what way do you feel treated with contempt by the SFA?

Incidentally, you'll note that I haven't expressed an opinion - other than that I think we'll get four points and win the group - I've only asked you a question (three times).

[The Moonster]

10 minutes ago, TurbineTon said:

Time and time again. Year after Year. 

Alan Hansen found.

[TurbineTon]

13 minutes ago, Estragon said:

It's so obvious, and yet you can't describe it to me?  In what way do you feel treated with contempt by the SFA?

Incidentally, you'll note that I haven't expressed an opinion - other than that I think we'll get four points and win the group - I've only asked you a question (three times).

• The way they go about their business - the new manager was a carve-up in house. They mad an absolute arse of themselves over the whole O'Neill situ and ended up going for a guy because he was mates with a member of the board;
• The secrecy and lack of transparency;
• Pricing of games;
• General lack of listening to fans;
• TV deals;
• Decision making - frequently calls for a second take on things (Semi-final perfect example); and
• the list goes on and on and on. 

Absolutely everything they do seems to be about them and not about the fans. Absolutely everything they do results in an outcry en mass which suggests to me that they don't give a f**k about fans. 

[Estragon]

Just now, TurbineTon said:

• The way they go about their business - the new manager was a carve-up in house;
• The secrecy and lack of transparency;
• Pricing of games;
• General lack of listening to fans;
• TV deals;
• Decision making - rarely calls for a second take on things (Semi-final perfect example); and
• the list goes on and on and on. 

1.  Alex McLeish was so obviously not their first choice, I'm not sure how you can arrive at your first conclusion.  I would have preferred that they cast the net further, but the SFA were so obviously pandering to the kind of collective post-Vogts xenophobia held in some quarters, it's not hard to find how they arrived at a pretty uninspiring appointment.

2.  & 4.  The SFA are not a public body.  The fact that you originally compared them to the national government kinda suggests that you're not clear on this.  You have as much right to transparency from the SFA as you do from Tunnock's.

3.  Pricing of games is one that you hear all the time, and tbh I'm sympathetic to this.  Rightly or wrongly, football is a business - and as such there are always going to be pricing decisions that marginalise an element of a potential customer base.  Personally, I don't think £30 is too much for a competitive international - but I do think it's too much for a friendly, as a result I don't attend the latter.  Mostly because friendlies are shite certainly - but I don't think this equates to being treated with contempt.

5.  I'd love more football on terrestrial telly.  Because, in line with the point above, I don't pay for Sky.  However, I ultimately recognise that broadcasting rights have to go to the highest bidder.

6.  Semi finals of the League Cup?  An originally disastrous - but ultimately rectified - plan; albeit one not originating from the SFA.

I promise you I’m not some Chemical Ali type, telling you there’s no invasion while American tanks roll past in the background – I know the national team is pretty shit, but I don’t think that at all equates to something that I have a right to take personally.

I stand by my original point though - which seems to be the one you took such exception to - I think we'll win the group, but I don't think that'll be enough to inject some much needed positivity into the setup.

[forameus]

To be fair to the SFA (I know, I know) I'm not sure their actions show contempt as much as negligence and stupidity.  I think they do care about their fans, because they know they'll be their main source of income, but they are just incredibly bad at doing that.  I'm not really sure what's in it for them to do all of this deliberately, rather than because they're just really bad at their jobs.

For what it's worth, if we top our group, by fair means or foul, I probably won't give a shit how we've done it, because it doesn't really matter.  All that matters is we got there.  We can then take a few months to hopefully get players fit (or actually get them to want to play for us) before the qualifiers, and take over a year to make sure we're in as good a state as possible for those playoffs.  

But if we fail, I think people have every might to complain.

[TurbineTon]

1 hour ago, Estragon said:

1.  Alex McLeish was so obviously not their first choice, I'm not sure how you can arrive at your first conclusion.  I would have preferred that they cast the net further, but the SFA were so obviously pandering to the kind of collective post-Vogts xenophobia held in some quarters, it's not hard to find how they arrived at a pretty uninspiring appointment.

2.  & 4.  The SFA are not a public body.  The fact that you originally compared them to the national government kinda suggests that you're not clear on this.  You have as much right to transparency from the SFA as you do from Tunnock's.

3.  Pricing of games is one that you hear all the time, and tbh I'm sympathetic to this.  Rightly or wrongly, football is a business - and as such there are always going to be pricing decisions that marginalise an element of a potential customer base.  Personally, I don't think £30 is too much for a competitive international - but I do think it's too much for a friendly, as a result I don't attend the latter.  Mostly because friendlies are shite certainly - but I don't think this equates to being treated with contempt.

5.  I'd love more football on terrestrial telly.  Because, in line with the point above, I don't pay for Sky.  However, I ultimately recognise that broadcasting rights have to go to the highest bidder.

6.  Semi finals of the League Cup?  An originally disastrous - but ultimately rectified - plan; albeit one not originating from the SFA.

I promise you I’m not some Chemical Ali type, telling you there’s no invasion while American tanks roll past in the background – I know the national team is pretty shit, but I don’t think that at all equates to something that I have a right to take personally.

I stand by my original point though - which seems to be the one you took such exception to - I think we'll win the group, but I don't think that'll be enough to inject some much needed positivity into the setup.

Several ITK folk suggested that the appointment of McLeish was indeed a carve up in the end. Half got to choose him whilst the others made the call on the new CEO. I've no reason not to believe this because the whole institution stinks of self-interest. 

They might not be a public body, but they have a duty to the fans of the Scottish game, whether you choose to accept that or not. It's in no way as fine a line as you make it out in that because they'yre not a public body they don't have to be transparent. In fact, i'd argue it's in their best interest. 

I take exception to the point that it's not a simple case of shutting folk up because we may top the group. There's a wider picture in that the SFA are a complete and utter joke organisation that needs to have a serious look at itself. I'm sorry if you take that personally for whatever reason, but it's an absolute fact. 

[TurbineTon]

26 minutes ago, forameus said:

To be fair to the SFA (I know, I know) I'm not sure their actions show contempt as much as negligence and stupidity.  I think they do care about their fans, because they know they'll be their main source of income, but they are just incredibly bad at doing that.  I'm not really sure what's in it for them to do all of this deliberately, rather than because they're just really bad at their jobs.

For what it's worth, if we top our group, by fair means or foul, I probably won't give a shit how we've done it, because it doesn't really matter.  All that matters is we got there.  We can then take a few months to hopefully get players fit (or actually get them to want to play for us) before the qualifiers, and take over a year to make sure we're in as good a state as possible for those playoffs.  

But if we fail, I think people have every might to complain.

2

A mixture of all 3 i'd say. 

[The Moonster]

5 minutes ago, TurbineTon said:

Several ITK folk suggested that the appointment of McLeish was indeed a carve up in the end. Half got to choose him whilst the others made the call on the new CEO. I've no reason not to believe this because the whole institution stinks of self-interest. 

They might not be a public body, but they have a duty to the fans of the Scottish game, whether you choose to accept that or not. It's in no way as fine a line as you make it out in that because they'yre not a public body they don't have to be transparent. In fact, i'd argue it's in their best interest. 

I take exception to the point that it's not a simple case of shutting folk up because we may top the group. There's a wider picture in that the SFA are a complete and utter joke organisation that needs to have a serious look at itself. I'm sorry if you take that personally for whatever reason, but it's an absolute fact. 

Who are the several ITK folk?