Auld_Reekie

Im undecided but I do get impression players are playing for him. It's important not to underestimate that - I dont think that would be the case with many of the possible alternatives being touted.

That is a fantastic photo. As others have said, drop the pitch, add rows down to pitch side and work on infrastructure around stadium - job done. The hardest thing about Hampden is improving the atmosphere and crowd at middle and lower tier games - would be good if SFA got innovative about engagin supporters instead of pi$$ing them off chasing every pound.

Stirling suffers for the same reason Perth does - just doesn't have the infrastructure. Train station isnt even close to supporting 40000 fans passingg through, never mind the rail network having the throughput to get trains going north and south quickly enough. Does Stirling have enough pubs - been a while since I was out there, but it has a handful at most. Bottom line, you just cannot have a national stadium (and a UEFA approved venue) anywhere other than Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Let's discount the easy stuff first: 1. No to a new stadium in the middle of nowhere; yes to a city stadium. 2. No to lining the pockets of any club team, especially the Old Firm. That leaves us with a solution in either Glasgow or Edinburgh, Dundee or Perth (apologies to Aberdeen and Inverness). Location wise, Perth would be ideal but just doesnt have capacity required and Dundee just doesn't offer enough to beat a national stadium in the two main cities. Edinburgh doesn't really feel right. Sharing Murrayfield feels a bit naff and to be blunt, I just dont think Edinburgh locals would want it bad enough. Rugby feels more their game and it would seem an injustice to have the national team play there (and I say this as a resident of Edinburgh with a healthy dislike of weegies!). There are a couple of sites around Edinburgh prime for a new shiney stadium with transport links (near Gogar springs to mind), but a lack of pubs would kill that idea stone dead. And it seems ridiculous to to add another good sized stadium in what is a pretty small city. It's either Murrayfield on nothing for Edinburgh IMO, and there would have to be a major investment from both to create a fantastic sporting arena (effectively rebuilding it) and I just don't see SFA investing in it, nor the rugby community being open to it in any way. As such, it's the Weej for me with the only question remaining whether to stay at Hampden or move. Unless there was an opportunity to build a city-centre stadium (such as Cardiff), there's just not enough incentive to move. It's worth remembering that even if we could build a city centre stadium, the transport links are still crap. Anyone arriving at Queen Street an hour after a game can see how woefully under-prepared we are to transport tens of thousands of fans from the city. Having them all descend on Queen Street 20 minutes after a game would be carnage - the hour it takes to get to town at least tapers the demand somewhat. On the whole, I'd probably opt for Hampden. It has it's critics but when it's full it's an absolutely incredible atmosphere. But it needs to be owned by the SFA and it needs a massive investment to modernise it. I'd probably support a whole rebuild but I kinda like the bowl. But those discussions are pointless until the SFA own the stadium. One question though: if the stadium is owned by Queen's Park, rented by the SFA, hosts numerous football games and sells out for concerts... where does all the money go. How come Queen's Park aren't minted and challenging the Old Firm. Who profits from Hampden? Either way, Hampden for me.

I didnt realise this "Allardyce for Manager" stuff was an actual thing. I thought it was a bit on an in-joke. F*** me. Have a word with yerselves.

On the subject of Griffiths, I dont think it's any coincidence that his better form coincided with us being left with no option but to be more adventurous and attacking in games. More generally, we look like actually winning games when we attack teams and we look like we could get pumped when we sit back and cower. There's a lesson in there for Strachan if he wants to stay on: go out and try to win games. Pick fit, attacking players and go for the win. As others have mentioned, it all stems from having little confidence in the players at his disposal but when he asked them to attack they surprised us all. I'd bin more than half the squad, but if I was looking to compromise, I'd bin some of the defensive midfielders first (or those that havent performed) and stick attacking midfielders in their place. Morrison, McArthur, Bannon, Anya, Phillips, Ritchie can all be told thanks but not thanks, and likewise Fletcher although I'd say he still make a good squad player. Same for strikers: Martin and Steven Fletcher have had their day.

Have no preference either way - open it up to all applicants and pick the best man for the job. Unfortunately, our benchmark for that position is probably different to the SFAs benchmark - they wont be having anyone who's likely to make life awkward for them (which is more likely to be the case if they are not mates with the board and the media). On the one hand, I'd sooner bring in an outsider but feel the media would be very quick to turn on him. On the other, we go Scottish and we're likely to get a Yes man who's inferior to Strachan. I doubt there's any Scottish manager worth his salt who'd be willing to take on the national team at a stage in their career where it disrupts their progress at club - the odds are stacked hugely against the national manager so it really needs to be someone who has nothing to lose and nothing to prove. Role was perfect for Strachan and if he goes, I don't see any decent Scottish managers who might be tempted being good enough for the role. Best hope we have of success is spreading the net as far and as wide as possible and hoping theirs a manager out there who thrives on a massive challenge like us.

Moyes' problem is that, rightly or wrongly, he became a joke figure in public. Was ridiculed by press, fans and players. I think it's almost impossible for him to hold a dressing room now because of it. Unless he finds a set of players wanting to give him a break and fight for him, he's lose support of dressing room, local media and fans far quicker than most other managers. I don't think he did great at ManU but it was far from all his fault and I think it's ruined his career. I wouldn't have him in the Scotland job for this reason: media and fans will turn on him at the first sign of trouble and it would be brutal. There's no way he could keep the dressing room.

We'd still find a way to f*** it up.

Probably has to go now and when he does, wont find too much criticism from me. Need to try and freshen the squad up and Strachan is far too conservative to do it. Fair play to him for trying to salvage something in this campaign but his conservative tactics got us into this mess last year when we laboured to a draw with Lithuania and then capitulated in Slovakia. Continuing with Strachan or continuing with this squad of players is not acceptable, at least one of which needs to change. I'd prefer we changed the management team and the squad. Do it quickly and get applications in from Scotland and beyond. I'd have no problem going international again.

Brown I'd have no problem with just concerned he's not committed enough for a full campaign. Morrison hasn't done anywhere near enough IMO. Would love Fletcher to play on but he's just not quick enough. Would have as a squad player but need fresh starting XI. If had more support around him still has something to give but can't be surrounded by McArthur, Bannon and Morrison.

I actually thought Fletcher was our best midfielder by some distance over the double header and that's including the fact he was weak tonight for first goal. Kept possession better than most and passing was of a far higher standard over two games. Given he's been our best midfielder and I think even needs to be replaced, tells you everything about rest of midfield.

This. Commit to this and I'd be excited about the next campaign. Get them in now and get them playing together as soon as possible. We aren't qualifying for tournaments anyway but I'd much rather support young guys rather than journeyman pros who really are punching above their weight domestically but drowning internationally.

Important thing now is to freshen the squad. We're over-valuing experience at the expense of younger, more dynamic players. Technically Slovakia and Slovenia were far better than us IMO, and we couldn't even match them for drive and work rate. If that's the reality, I'd rather we gave younger players more experience sooner - it was this that reaped us the benefit of Fletcher and Faddy in their prime. It's over now so I don't want to overly criticise players that have worked hard for the journey, but Bannon, Fletcher, McArthur, Morrison, Anya, Phillips, Martin, and a couple more have not managed to get us to at least a play off and it would be madness to think they'll somehow peak in the next few years. I'd sooner finish in the same position having blooded McGinn, McGregor and a half dozen more and hopefully strike it lucky with a group of younger players coming into their prime rather than those past their prime. More generally, surely the next generation of players have better technical skill because it's embarrassing how poor our technique is. Slovenian players were almost effortless in first touch and passing, while we laboured to control the ball and Fletcher aside, couldnt string multiple passes together without taking an age. We need to bridge at least the technical or athletic gap, because right now we're well behind other comparable nations on both.

An expected performance unfortunately. We've rode our luck far too often and it was going to run out eventually. Far too lethargic, sitting too deep and technically just not good enough. Too many vanilla players who are much of a muchness. Couldn't commit younger, more dynamic players to the game because we wouldn't blood them at home. Both Slovakia and Slovenia had much more technically able players than we did.

Good to see different opinions are still welcome on here. But aye, hands up, probably being over-pessimistic - just think we made it harder than it needed to be. Playing against 10 men for an hour or so though would have liked to have seen a more attacking change in tactics but that's why Im sitting in an office and not a dugout.

Yep. Don't disagree. I refuse to believe team selection and tactics like tonight gets us anywhere in world football though. Happy to sneak the win but it's soul destroying.

Thought we were average. Tactics were poor. Substitutions were like for like. I'm not going to pat myself on the back for beating a team down to ten men for an hour or so. Aye probably just edged it over the 90 minutes but lacked any kind of class. I'll take it but it was terrible fare.

The level of planning is chilling. Apparently had cameras set up in room, hall and door so he could see when police/security were approaching. Insane.

Used Fife Football Forums for several years and seemed pretty well run although the number of users that used that forum will be much less than on here. Giving the performance and technical problems this board has had over the years, it would be good if scotsmanarizona could outline his technical proposals, proposed costs and how he'll cover the expense, etc. If he's only one coming forward, then fair enough but if we're to clean the board up and have it running far better, would be good do at least some due diligence.

IMO, there should be a team of people taking it on. Handing it over to an individual or two risks same problems arising if/when they don't have time to give it attention it deserves. The more than just tech stuff that needs sorting out - moderation has been piss poor for ages and a fresh look at what can be done to make it better is needed. And even if it's transferred, how do we make sure it pays for itself? A group of people should be looking at this kind of stuff. Many hands make light work as they say.

PM was sent to admin about 30 minutes ago - currently unread. Should it be sent to Admin4 instead?

Sure. Can only ask the questions and see what happens. If information isnt forthcoming, it either dies, gets transferred in a private sale or a new group build a new forum from ground up. Open market and all that and a TAMB is some form will be driven by market forces and how much we all want one. Hardest part is pulling various people together who know what they are doing and working out an ownsership and IT strategy.

Even modest VPS hosting is cheap: https://uk.godaddy.com/hosting/vps-hosting £25 per month for Ultimate package and all packages include unmetered bandwidth. I think the disk space usage would be a far bigger issue (after some time) than bandwidth. thplinth alone talks enough nonsense to consume the Deluxe disk space. From what I can tell, the Invision self-hosted license has no usage/user limitations and can be purchase for £100 with a £25 quid renewal every 6 months. Another £100 with a £35 quid renewal gets you the Commerce functionality that would enable subscription based membership. This works out to be significantly cheaper than the figures quoted currently. Can only assume Invision are currently hosting the forum which would explain the expense and the various usage limits. Kinda makes sense if that has been done due to lack of technical experience of behalf of the owners but such arrangements can be financially crippling. I can't believe the throughput or footprint of this forum is huge enough that a decent VPS or even dedicated server couldnt cope. The latter would even be cheaper than current costs.