Slarti

Yes, I brought them into it to compare football to other sports. As athletics (not the Olympics) is the obvious one where improvements can be quantified over generations, I used two athletes. I really don't see what's hard to understand about it. I could just as easily have used Roger Bannister and Seb Coe, the specific athletes are irrelevant to the point.

He's not Callum he's me. I'm Cookie. Cookie's Faraway. Faraway's Div. Div's antrin. Antrin's auld. Easy peasy.

Yes, shull, I did call you shull. Some posters ARE just an alias of another poster. I never mentioned the Olympics. You said that today's players aren't fit to clean the boots of previous generations. I supplied evidence of why you are, almost certainly, wrong. At least I don't have a split personality and talk to myself. [emoji1787]

How is it pompous?

I did pay attention to the username. My point was that, when things are subjective, there will always be arguments and that, without a stopwatch, the 100m would be subjective which would, no doubt, lead to people arguing the point. As already said, "better" is a subjective term when there is no definitive way to measure. The game in the past may have been more entertaining (again, subjective) but that doesn't mean that the players were "better". The fact that, in sports that can be definitively measured, records are constantly broken (with a few exceptions where 1. the competitors are now regarded as being massive drug cheats; 2. the sport has drastically changed, e.g. javelin; or 3. records were set at altitude) would strongly suggest that, in sports that cannot be definitively measured, the competitors would also be getting "better". There are obviously a few potential outliers, that's why I said "in general". If you have any evidence to the contrary that doesn't rely on opinion, feel free to present it.

Don't watch it then, shull. In general, every generation of sports people, in every sport, are better than the previous generation. Whether or not this makes the sport better as a spectacle is a matter of opinion. In sports where things can be definitively measured there can be no argument, in sports that cannot lots seem to think that sports people were better in the past. If there was no such thing as a stopwatch, people would be arguing whether Carl Lewis would have beaten Usain Bolt. Footballers can only really be measured against those in their own generation and even then it is pretty subjective.

So that's 2 sales. One for shull and one for shull.

Costa Rica do Germany a big favour by beating Japan 1-0. Germans can still go through even if they lose to Spain.

How much has been spent and how much time has been spent away from other matters (and what matters are they)? Just ball park figures will do, no need to be precise. Of course I never thought it was her own money. However, as there was the slight chance that she had dipped into her own pocket to supply hobnobs for a meeting, I included it. I've explained before, unless it's St Mirren or Scotland (or directly related games), I'm not interested in watching hours and hours of football. You are and that's fine, I'm not and that's also fine.

Whose money was spent and how much? Her own? - she can do what she wants with that. The SNP's? - I would imagine that most money the SNP raises will be to forward the case for independence, so it's right that it should be spent on that. The ScotGov's? - After being voted in on a manifesto pledge of holding another referendum then there should be no issue with money being spent to try to achieve that. "better" is a very subjective term.

Talking of 50%, that's the amount that, according to a new poll, would vote for the SNP if it meant a mandate for independence with 33% saying they wouldn't. Only 41% or those polled voted for the SNP at the last GE. Source: The Daily Ranger A new opinion poll has found that half of Scots would vote SNP in the next general election if a victory for the party could lead to Scottish independence. According to the Find Out Now survey it found that of the 1,006 Scots asked 51 per cent would vote for Nicola Sturgeon's party if their vote would be used as a mandate to negotiate independence with the UK Government, while a third said they would not. Of those asked, 412 of whom voted SNP in the last general election, 50 per cent said they would vote SNP at the next general election if a victory for them could lead to Scotland leaving the UK. A third (33 per cent) said they would not, while the remainder said they do not know or prefer not to say.

You're not wrong. 47.7% of constituency vote and 40.3% of regional vote in the last Scottish Parliament election. 45% in the last GE.

If they were playing "the same game" then there wouldn't be men's and women's football, there would just be football. Using her logic, a Gleniffer Thistle U16 player should get paid the same as Messi. Until they bring in the same money as the men's game they won't be paid the same. P.S. I know I'm brilliant when I sing in the Abbey Bar but I'm not a woman. A big girl's blouse, maybe, but still not a woman. [emoji16]

Busy day for South Korea.

I think you've been royally whooshed. [emoji1787]