unfitfinlay

Paid Members
  • Content count

    812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About unfitfinlay

  • Rank
    Card Filler
  • Birthday 09/10/1980

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,538 profile views
  1. It depends what you mean by "overspend", I suppose. Borrowing isn't really a bad thing if it's all going back into the economy, creating jobs and generating tax revenue. Personally I'd argue that New Labour's biggest economic failings were when they tried to hide debt with shit like PFI and the set up of Network Rail, both of which were far far more expensive in the long term than just borrowing money from the bank. Overall, I'd argue that their mistakes are a drop in the ocean compared to the Tories, whose attempts to "pay down" the debt have more than doubled it.
  2. Yet May's refusing to debate Corbyn or, well, anyone for that matter. Even her campaign launch was full of bused in activists asking pre-approved questions. The Tories were twice elected on the basis that they'd get the national debt under control. They've doubled it. As much as Labour were guilty of reckless borrowing, the bulk of their debt was from bailing out the banks. Just what the fuck have the Tories spent £500 billion on in seven years? Not Britain anyway. The Red Cross has described the state of the NHS as a "humanitarian crisis", the UN has described our treatment of the poor and the disabled as a breach of human rights and, yet, they are still promising more cuts to keep taxes low for the rich? Literally the only thing May has on her side is the media. If they actually reported just how.....woeful the Tories record is then this would be a landslide for Corbyn. That's why she's avoiding debates. Imagine her going on live TV and trying to defend something as abhorrent as "the rape clause"? She'd get torn apart. As for the EU. May is promising that she'll end free movement, which the EU have been clear all along is essential for any deal. Negotiations are fucked already.
  3. As a national promotion? Nope. Aside from things that WyattSheepMask covered, there simply isn't the talent available for a second national promotion. TNA started at a time when there was a ton of ex-WCW and ECW stars available and in reasonably good shape and hardly any place to work. Who would you build around nowadays? There's barely any legitimate stars in WWE, nevermind the Independent scene, and the people that are in demand, like the Young Bucks work all over the place. How do you convince people to pay you to see them instead of any of the other companies? You'd pretty much have to pay for exclusivity and you're not covering the cost of that for £5 a month. It might be a decent revenue stream for a smaller company, or one with a unique style and an established fanbase, like ICW, but trying to build a brand new company around it would be a total disaster.
  4. I started High School in 1992. When I left Primary school, wrestling was still the cool thing to be into. At some point during the summer it became "gay as fuck" as I mentioned it at the bus stop on the first day and got the piss ripped out of me. I tried to keep my mouth shut about it after that, at least around the bigger kids. My only other embarrassing memory was when one of them asked what I'd got for my birthday and my mate, innocently enough, said I'd got the Rockers and the Nasty Boys hasbros, which lead to more slagging That was 25 years ago (!!) and obviously I've grown up a bit since then. If I keep my fandom quiet nowadays it's mainly because (a) I honestly barely watch (b) Other wrestling fans can be kind of odd and I've met more than few who are like "Oh we both like wrestling. I guess that makes us best friends. Best friends who only ever talk about wrestling. All the time".
  5. The Goon, Issac Yankem, Duke The Dumpster Drosse, Dean Douglas etc. Basically sums up that awful period where practically the whole of the WWF's midcard had second jobs. I don't think the WWF's ever been in a worse place creatively really. They desperately needed to create new stars to replace the old Cartoon-era guys and yet it felt like they were just going "Ah fuck it. Let's make him a plumber".
  6. Oh, I know that. I understand the reasoning behind this one completely. I would have been firmly against Scottish independence if I'd been able to vote in the 2014 ref, but this time I could be tempted the other way, and that's because of Brexit. It's a very valid reason because as you say, the circumstances have changed, a lot. But I do still feel it's a valid reason for what they would have found some other reason to do if it didn't exist. I was in Edinburgh on Brexit day and as soon as the result was out you heard talk of when the next indyref would be. If Remain had won, I'm fairly sure they'd have still found something to justify calling for another referendum. If this one goes the same way as the first one, I'm fairly sure they'll find something to justify doing a third one a few years down the line, and a fourth, and so on because if the Scottish National Party is the dominant party in Scotland, they're going to keep trying to get that one big thing they want until they get it. Or to summarise, why I put that bit at the start of my post about how "if this one doesn't work". That's because the SNP's election manifesto specifically included the possibility of a second referendum if we voted to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK leaves. I'd say it's a given that if we lose this time, it's done forever mainly because I think May will use the result as a mandate to roll back devolution. I wouldn't say so. The end of the U.K is in the best interests of the EU now - If we're better off by leaving then other countries will follow suit and the whole thing will be done. They can't (and never have been) able to make an official statement about Scotland's status until Westminster asks them to do so. There's plenty of positive signs though, such as a Spanish Government MEP saying that they wouldn't veto us, and Guy Verhofstadt has flat out said that Europe would want us. Unless we can come to a deal where we take the U.K's membership then we'd have to apply but it's not like we don't meet the criteria given that we are already EU members. As an aside, EU membership is far from the only argument for Independence. Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has already conceded the 2020 election to the Tories (I know. She's shite) so it's going to be very hard for the Unionist side to frame it as anything other than "Independence vs Tory Rule". Not to mention that it took a series of desperate, last minute promises to swing the vote last time, none of which have really been fulfilled. I can't see us falling for that again. They might go for a "The EU isn't Independence" argument BUT all the major parties in the Scottish Parliament supported staying in the EU so I can't see that holding any water either. To be honest, looking at the potential leaders of the "No" campaign, I'd say it's going to be very difficult for them to win.
  7. This isn't a case of right and wrong, it's about picking your battles and, as you say, running a business. TNA need to rebuild their fanbase and get a positive buzz going. That should be their biggest priority. They aren't going to attract casual fans at this stage so they need to target the "hardcore" fan, which unfortunately is the type of fan who takes this sort of shit personally. You can call it entitlement, or whatever, but it's still a reality. They've alienated a lot of potential customers, and seriously hurt their "reboot", all to protect intellectual property that they can't use anyway. It's a massive own goal however you look at it.
  8. That's why they should go "We really appreciate everything you've done for us. We own the "Broken Universe" but if you acknowledge that and pay us a dollar a year then we'll let you keep using it.". TNA is a toxic brand and they desperately need to generate some positive feelings among wrestling fans. The fact that the new owners first big decision is to kill off some very popular characters is absolutely disastrous. They aren't WWE. They aren't big enough to do this sort of shit without alienating their target audience. Anybody paying to see the Broken Hardys and getting the standard version isn't going to think "Well TNA are just trying to protect their interests", they're going to think "Fuck TNA". They might be in the right, legally, but they're fighting a battle where they'll lose even if they win.
  9. You're right in many ways. Rightly or wrongly, I think there is a tendency for the IWC to jump on anything negative TNA/Impact does. I don't think there would be the same level of uproar had an ROH wrestler made the jump to TNA under similar circumstances. That said, and knowing that to be the case, I think it would be best for TNA to just be the better man and let this one slide. They're in a can't win situation really, and I think everyone knows that Matt and Jeff probably did go above and beyond the call of duty to develop the gimmick while the company was in flux. TNA just don't have the goodwill that other companies have though. The stories that have come out about how they've treated talent are pretty incredible. This just feels like "New owners but they are still cunts". Surely the sensible thing for them to do would be establish ownership but agree to let the Hardys use it for a token sum. That way there's precedent for similar cases in the future. The thing I don't get is surely the Broken Hardys going elsewhere and getting over isn't a bad thing for TNA? What's the point in killing over characters that you own all the footage of? If a new audience wants to see how it all developed then they're going to have to look at TNA. It also keeps the characters alive if they ever decide to go back to TNA in future. They'd get a far better reaction/buzz if they returned after using the characters on the Indies than just suddenly being "broken" again.
  10. I think it contributed but I thought the main issue was Reigns getting injured and being out for months. It really hurt his momentum but they just plopped him back in the same spot and expected the fans to just accept it. Actually, no, I suppose the main issue is that WWE can't book babyfaces to be babyfaces. Reigns is class. He's good in the ring and he looks like the coolest fucker on the planet. It's unfortunate that he's been booked like a massive bellend.
  11. It's nothing special. It does set up the rest of the Dark Tower series though which is great.
  12. I think I'm going to have to do the same. I've been absolutely fucked with depression for the past few weeks - to the point I've lost about a stone just because I haven't been eating - and I've realised that very little of the stuff that's stressing me out are actually my problems. It's either stuff that's been dropped on me or, like an idiot, that I've just picked up and started carrying about with me. I'm not going to be a total prick but I definitely need to concentrate on myself and my own happiness first and foremost. Edit - Well that's off to a good start. My work phoned to ask if I could do another extra shift next week in addition to the one I'm already covering. I said no, because I have a mountain of college work to do and explained that I've been suffering from depression. Got a lecture and threatened with a disciplinary. Looks like I'm going to be looking for a new job now as well.
  13. It reads to me that she doesn't like you but is flattered that you like her. She's asking about the other girl just to boost her own ego. Having just been through something similar, I'd say just back off. You can make excuses for her like "She's quite inexperienced with dating" but, if you let her treat you like a cunt then she'll just stop respecting you, and you'll end up pissed off and frustrated when she starts going out with someone else.
  14. To be fair, 1998 wasn't exactly overflowing with affordable free agents was it? Bischoff was throwing money at people JUST to stop them working for Vince. I can totally see the logic of going for guys, like Regal and Tenta, who WCW didn't want anymore and trying to repackage them into stars. It's not like they don't have a history of that. It's not like they were planning to build the future of the company around them. They were probably looking at just one or two matches against Austin, who did need fresh, but safe, opponents, until the likes of The Rock were ready to step up.
  15. I blame the writing, at least in part. They don't let storylines build like they used to, and results generally don't have much consequences anyway: If somebody loses a Title, they'll probably get a rematch soon. If somebody in their prime has to retire, you know they'll probably be back, because it's happened so many times in the past. Nothing changes and nothing means anything. The gimmick PPVs don't help with this either. Hell in a Cell used to be the ultimate feud ender now it's "Well, it's October so I suppose we should have a cell match eh?" The characters themselves are treated like shite as well. Nobody wants to cheer a pussy and, yet, that's how a lot of WWE's babyfaces are presented. One of the things that sent Austin into superstardom was that Vince was absolutely fucking terrified of him. Now? We get shit like Stephanie slapping Reigns about and calling him a cunt while he just stands there and takes it. Granted, male on female violence isn't going to work well nowadays but why book the segment in the first place? I'm not an Indy fapper (anymore) and I actually like Reigns but I'm not cheering for him after shit like that. I'm not defending cunty fans but I do think they'd be less vocal if the product was more engaging. At the very least they might get drowned out by normal fans who, judging by the ratings, aren't watching at the moment.