FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Who should host MOTD now
Who should host MOTD now
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Do they really need the commentary? Just imagine how much time and money could be saved just by showing the match then moving onto the next programme?
1h45 is sufficient time for the match (ok 2 hours with stoppage) do they truly need another 2hours to comment on every detail on what we have just seen? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Quite like the idea of tonight's format for when I want a quick look at what happened available somewhere on the BBC.
But, if the current format remains, this could be a good time to look at the longer term future, a new bunch of younger pundits.....along with a less expensive cast, retaining and using the current crew until their contracts expire.
I would keep the Richards geezer as he makes me smile. Alex Scott and Jill Scott both have proven broadcast credentials and more knowledge than most of us put together. Add in a few new names and the guest appearance of an out of work manager, while leading with a erious sports journalist or broadcaster who can ask real questions rather than pandering to the usual boys club banter.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Literally anyone else.
No time for the ego driven luvvies using their celebrity platform to stir up topics that they aren't well informed of or an authority on.
Look at the recent case of the murderer who killed again after their deportation flight was derailed by celebs and the like.
Let the law makers and politicians THAT WE VOTED FOR do their job and the tv pundits stick to tv chit chat.
Absolutely have an opinion, 100% chat amongst friends/ family. Keep it separate to the impartial arena they signed up to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Do they really need the commentary? Just imagine how much time and money could be saved just by showing the match then moving onto the next programme?
1h45 is sufficient time for the match (ok 2 hours with stoppage) do they truly need another 2hours to comment on every detail on what we have just seen?"
Yes, forensic detail is needed plus in game commentary then a full breakdown in the studio.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong "
Exactly this. The BBC foolishly allowed themselves to be railroaded into this by the tories. Linear isn’t a journalist and therefore should be allowed to air his political opinions as long as he doesn’t imply that they are the opinions of the BBC. And Alan Sugar - who also works for the BBC - has expressed very right-wing views without any consequences.
The impression we’re all getting now is right wing is fine - left isn’t. Hardly Impartiality.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"No time for the ego driven luvvies using their celebrity platform to stir up topics that they aren't well informed of or an authority on.
Absolutely have an opinion, 100% chat amongst friends/ family. Keep it separate to the impartial arena they signed up to. "
First, do you see the irony of you giving YOUR opinion that is saying he should not give HIS opinion?
He gets paid to comment on MoTD. His twitter feed is completely separate from that isn't it?
"Let the law makers and politicians THAT WE VOTED FOR do their job and the tv pundits stick to tv chit chat. "
Most of us didn't vote for the current government though, did we?
I don't think we should hold all refugees responsible for the conduct of one person who commits a murder.
That's like saying disband the NHS as there's quite a few of their staff that kill patients, both deliberately and negligently.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No time for the ego driven luvvies using their celebrity platform to stir up topics that they aren't well informed of or an authority on.
Absolutely have an opinion, 100% chat amongst friends/ family. Keep it separate to the impartial arena they signed up to.
First, do you see the irony of you giving YOUR opinion that is saying he should not give HIS opinion?
He gets paid to comment on MoTD. His twitter feed is completely separate from that isn't it?
Let the law makers and politicians THAT WE VOTED FOR do their job and the tv pundits stick to tv chit chat.
Most of us didn't vote for the current government though, did we?
I don't think we should hold all refugees responsible for the conduct of one person who commits a murder.
That's like saying disband the NHS as there's quite a few of their staff that kill patients, both deliberately and negligently.
Gbat "
°°°
I clearly stated, have an opinion, but his 'personal' socials are his professional shop window. Not comparable to other folk. He uses his to push his professional profile. His persona is his currency.
And I'm fairly sure you know how democracy works. Get over it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Get over it.
Not used to people disagreeing with you then?
Gbat "
No but you have no argument so make a personal comment.
This is a discussion.
Bring me a real rebuttal and not a personal attack and you might make ground |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *os19Man
over a year ago
Edmonton |
Strange watching MOTD without any presenters or pundits as for who should present it for me Gary Lineker has done nothing wrong so should be allowed to continue however if he is to be replaced I think the the BBC may well go for Alex Scott |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do they really need the commentary? Just imagine how much time and money could be saved just by showing the match then moving onto the next programme?
1h45 is sufficient time for the match (ok 2 hours with stoppage) do they truly need another 2hours to comment on every detail on what we have just seen?"
How long do you think its normally on for?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"No but you have no argument so make a personal comment.
This is a discussion.
Bring me a real rebuttal and not a personal attack and you might make ground"
Which bit of my post do you think is a personal attack?
My rebuttal was quite clear, his MoTD work and his personal Twitter are completely separate things.
There's no personal attack, I just don't agree with you.
And of course I know how democracy works, but the UKs current version isn't working very well at the moment. There are other models such as proportional representation, which I think would work much better.
Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Literally anyone else.
No time for the ego driven luvvies using their celebrity platform to stir up topics that they aren't well informed of or an authority on.
Look at the recent case of the murderer who killed again after their deportation flight was derailed by celebs and the like.
Let the law makers and politicians THAT WE VOTED FOR do their job and the tv pundits stick to tv chit chat.
Absolutely have an opinion, 100% chat amongst friends/ family. Keep it separate to the impartial arena they signed up to. "
I'd love it if politicians did their job.
Maybe the home secretary could come up with an immigration policy she is willing to say complies with human rights. That's a start. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No but you have no argument so make a personal comment.
This is a discussion.
Bring me a real rebuttal and not a personal attack and you might make ground
Which bit of my post do you think is a personal attack?
My rebuttal was quite clear, his MoTD work and his personal Twitter are completely separate things.
There's no personal attack, I just don't agree with you.
And of course I know how democracy works, but the UKs current version isn't working very well at the moment. There are other models such as proportional representation, which I think would work much better.
Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
"
Then how did they get elected? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"Then how did they get elected? "
You'd have to Google it to get the actual figures, but as an illustration .....
There are 5 parties standing and 20 voters.
These are what each party gets.
Party 1 4 votes
Party 2 3 votes
Party 3 3 votes
Party 4 2 votes
Party 5 1 vote
7 people didn't vote.
Party 1 wins with 4 votes but more than twice as many people voted for other parties.
In simple terms, that's how they got in.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Then how did they get elected?
You'd have to Google it to get the actual figures, but as an illustration .....
There are 5 parties standing and 20 voters.
These are what each party gets.
Party 1 4 votes
Party 2 3 votes
Party 3 3 votes
Party 4 2 votes
Party 5 1 vote
7 people didn't vote.
Party 1 wins with 4 votes but more than twice as many people voted for other parties.
In simple terms, that's how they got in.
Gbat "
So did they get legally elected or not? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract"
Oh right, because the BBC are the epitome of impartiality aren't they?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract."
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So did they get legally elected or not?
Yes, but that wasn't the question.
Gbat "
We had a democratic process. The Tories won.
10 years or so ago, we had a referendum on PR....the public voted to reject PR and retain our current system.
It may not be what you want but it was a democratic process that the public decided upon which resulted on shade of government that many may not agree with but that is democracy.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”.""
Which element of his contract has he breached? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
10 years or so ago, we had a referendum on PR....the public voted to reject PR and retain our current system.
"
This is not true. The Lib Dems backed down and allowed some terrible AV option on the ballot which would have either made no difference, or actively made things worse. I voted against AV. I would definitely have voted for PR. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
10 years or so ago, we had a referendum on PR....the public voted to reject PR and retain our current system.
This is not true. The Lib Dems backed down and allowed some terrible AV option on the ballot which would have either made no difference, or actively made things worse. I voted against AV. I would definitely have voted for PR."
This |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"It may not be what you want but it was a democratic process that the public decided upon which resulted on shade of government that many may not agree with but that is democracy. "
I'm not disagreeing with you. I accept it's the current system, albeit a flawed one.
I disagreed with someone who said something along the lines of "Let the politicians we voted in get on with it." I pointed out that most people didn't vote them in.
I probably should have also said, allowing them to get on with it without comment or oversight would be a huge mistake. That's definitely not how democracy should work. If you stand for public office, you should expect to be scrutinised to the *nth degree. It's a tough job and the public should expect excellence.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *lynJMan
over a year ago
Morden |
"Think all match of the day should be presented this way. Imagine how much money the taxpayer would save. Without Gary Lineker in the way"
It comes from the licence fee not general tax. And GL is paid approx £1.5m a year. With about 32.2m taxpayers, that's a saving of about 4.7p each. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Lineker. Done nothing wrong, did not bring any bias into his presenting or the BBC, spoke as a private individual. He is a pundit, not Huw Edwards
This"
This |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No but you have no argument so make a personal comment.
This is a discussion.
Bring me a real rebuttal and not a personal attack and you might make ground
Which bit of my post do you think is a personal attack?
My rebuttal was quite clear, his MoTD work and his personal Twitter are completely separate things.
There's no personal attack, I just don't agree with you.
And of course I know how democracy works, but the UKs current version isn't working very well at the moment. There are other models such as proportional representation, which I think would work much better.
Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
"
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Does anyone really care?
Is it going to make a drastic difference to your everyday life?
Do people actually only watch match of the day because of Gary Lineker? "
Might as well be ant and dec with all the buffoonery and back slapping going on. Awful program. Im a celeb get me on tv. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
" Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome."
I think you might have missed my point. I fully accept that they are the lawfully elected government of the UK.
I wasn’t talking about people who didn’t vote. Their views will remain unknown and un catered for.
My point was that off all the voters who voted, less than fifty percent voted Tory. The remainder voted for all the other parties put together. (I don’t know the actual figures but in essence that was what I was saying). More people voted Tory than any other individual party, but again, that’s not what I was saying.
More people who voted, didn’t vote Tory. So when somebody says “The politicians we elected.” I think it’s fair to say that a majority of us in fact did not vote for them. I’m not in that “we.”
I know it doesn’t affect the outcome under the current system, but that was never the point I was making.
My apologies if I haven’t been clear enough for you.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome.
I think you might have missed my point. I fully accept that they are the lawfully elected government of the UK.
I wasn’t talking about people who didn’t vote. Their views will remain unknown and un catered for.
My point was that off all the voters who voted, less than fifty percent voted Tory. The remainder voted for all the other parties put together. (I don’t know the actual figures but in essence that was what I was saying). More people voted Tory than any other individual party, but again, that’s not what I was saying.
More people who voted, didn’t vote Tory. So when somebody says “The politicians we elected.” I think it’s fair to say that a majority of us in fact did not vote for them. I’m not in that “we.”
I know it doesn’t affect the outcome under the current system, but that was never the point I was making.
My apologies if I haven’t been clear enough for you.
Gbat "
Ok understand. But so what? What is your point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome.
I think you might have missed my point. I fully accept that they are the lawfully elected government of the UK.
I wasn’t talking about people who didn’t vote. Their views will remain unknown and un catered for.
My point was that off all the voters who voted, less than fifty percent voted Tory. The remainder voted for all the other parties put together. (I don’t know the actual figures but in essence that was what I was saying). More people voted Tory than any other individual party, but again, that’s not what I was saying.
More people who voted, didn’t vote Tory. So when somebody says “The politicians we elected.” I think it’s fair to say that a majority of us in fact did not vote for them. I’m not in that “we.”
I know it doesn’t affect the outcome under the current system, but that was never the point I was making.
My apologies if I haven’t been clear enough for you.
Gbat
Ok understand. But so what? What is your point? "
He was originally answering a question but people didn’t seem to understand his answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome.
I think you might have missed my point. I fully accept that they are the lawfully elected government of the UK.
I wasn’t talking about people who didn’t vote. Their views will remain unknown and un catered for.
My point was that off all the voters who voted, less than fifty percent voted Tory. The remainder voted for all the other parties put together. (I don’t know the actual figures but in essence that was what I was saying). More people voted Tory than any other individual party, but again, that’s not what I was saying.
More people who voted, didn’t vote Tory. So when somebody says “The politicians we elected.” I think it’s fair to say that a majority of us in fact did not vote for them. I’m not in that “we.”
I know it doesn’t affect the outcome under the current system, but that was never the point I was making.
My apologies if I haven’t been clear enough for you.
Gbat "
I got what you were saying fwiw. And I agree x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If I watch MOTD I watch the key games (which they start with) then switch off. It’s just too long.
I really liked the new ‘lite’ version of MOTD. 20 mins and you saw all of the key action from all the key games. No nonsense. No waffle.
I, for one, would be quite happy if it stayed like this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome.
I think you might have missed my point. I fully accept that they are the lawfully elected government of the UK.
I wasn’t talking about people who didn’t vote. Their views will remain unknown and un catered for.
My point was that off all the voters who voted, less than fifty percent voted Tory. The remainder voted for all the other parties put together. (I don’t know the actual figures but in essence that was what I was saying). More people voted Tory than any other individual party, but again, that’s not what I was saying.
More people who voted, didn’t vote Tory. So when somebody says “The politicians we elected.” I think it’s fair to say that a majority of us in fact did not vote for them. I’m not in that “we.”
I know it doesn’t affect the outcome under the current system, but that was never the point I was making.
My apologies if I haven’t been clear enough for you.
Gbat
I got what you were saying fwiw. And I agree x"
Just looked it up...it was 43.6% of the population voted Conservative and this is how first past the post elections work. I can't see a time when the winning party gets over 50%. When Tony Blair had his landslide win he only had around 35%. Its the system we have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
" Ok understand. But so what? What is your point? "
My point was quite simple.
Someone said, in essence, "Leave the politicians to get on with Politics, we voted for them."
I pointed out that in fact most voters didn't vote for them, that's all. When they said "WE voted" I want to make it clear that I'm not in that WE.
I don't mind if you don't think it's important, but I suppose what I should have said all along is that I think Politicians should be scrutinised to the highest degree, more so than football commentators.
We've got a sitting PM that has been issued with two different Fixed Penalty tickets in recent times. A previous PM who is under investigation for lying to Parliament, one who lasted less time than some rotting food, and well, you know the news, lots of other stuff that doesn't look good.
There's not much more to say on this, other than for the sake of completeness, here's a quote from The Common's Library.
"The Conservative’s best result in terms of seats won since 1945 was at the 1983 General Election, when 397 MPs were elected. Its highest share of the vote was 49.7% in 1955.
At the 1997 General Election, there were 165 Conservative MPs elected and the party received 30.7% of the vote. This was its worst performance in terms of share of the vote and seats won since 1918.
In 2019, the Party won 365 seats. This was the most they have held since 1987."
I hasten to add that there would be similar low figures for any other elected UK government.
It's one form of democracy, other forms (with their own flaws) exist. Whichever we use, let's keep watching whoever is in office and make sure they live up to what we deserve. Politics belongs to all of us, not just the elected few.
Gbat
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Saw this take this morning from my favourite YouTuber (in part due to meltdowns)
“Controversial take? MOTD is past it and needs major renovation anyway. Commentary, punditry, presentation hasn't move on in 30 years and still relies on the viewer naively lapping up "I've played the game" bias. Football moved on years ago”
I tend to agree. Once this Lineker fuss is over. Freshen it up a bit.
Let’s have some new blood in there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Well what Gary tweets in his own time away from the TV job should be down to him and in the same way what Jeremy Clarkson writes in his TV column should be nothing to do with his TV work. Reinstate Gary an reinstate Jeremy.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Lineker should host MOTD now."
He should and hopefully will butbI would understand him telling them to stick it
He has been offered jobs by BT Sport and ITV respectively it will be interesting to see what happens |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Lineker should host MOTD now.
He should and hopefully will butbI would understand him telling them to stick it
He has been offered jobs by BT Sport and ITV respectively it will be interesting to see what happens "
He already works for BTSport doing the Champions League - its a phallacy that these people only work for the BBC - which is nothing short of a Government propaganda machine anyway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Lineker should host MOTD now.
He should and hopefully will butbI would understand him telling them to stick it
He has been offered jobs by BT Sport and ITV respectively it will be interesting to see what happens
He already works for BTSport doing the Champions League - its a phallacy that these people only work for the BBC - which is nothing short of a Government propaganda machine anyway"
Exactly that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”.""
The daily hate cherry picking what suits their anti BBC agenda?
Well I am truly shocked..
Let me guess, they're going to apply that to Alan Sugar too and the BBC chairman under two investigations..
Like fuck are they.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”."
The daily hate cherry picking what suits their anti BBC agenda?
Well I am truly shocked..
Let me guess, they're going to apply that to Alan Sugar too and the BBC chairman under two investigations..
Like fuck are they.."
Don't forget Fiona Bruce....the beeb defended her comments on Question time over domestic violence
And her being an ambassador for Refuge. Disgusting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Saw this take this morning from my favourite YouTuber (in part due to meltdowns)
“Controversial take? MOTD is past it and needs major renovation anyway. Commentary, punditry, presentation hasn't move on in 30 years and still relies on the viewer naively lapping up "I've played the game" bias. Football moved on years ago”
I tend to agree. Once this Lineker fuss is over. Freshen it up a bit.
Let’s have some new blood in there. "
Bias?
They're ex professional players, some who have played at the highest level..
Bringing in someone else from where?
Welcome to the all new MOTD format, presented by Bob Smith who once played the second half in a semi final of the Johnstone's paint trophy with expert punditry from Eric Harris who has watched his local team play every Sunday morning down at the recreation ground and Julia Jones whose career was sadly ended in her fifth game for the Kingston kickers when she was chopped down from behind in a well dodgy tackle..
Meanwhile over on channel four the judging in the best in show us just about to start with Margaret Aspinwall making the big call as she likes fluffy cute dogs.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Saw this take this morning from my favourite YouTuber (in part due to meltdowns)
“Controversial take? MOTD is past it and needs major renovation anyway. Commentary, punditry, presentation hasn't move on in 30 years and still relies on the viewer naively lapping up "I've played the game" bias. Football moved on years ago”
I tend to agree. Once this Lineker fuss is over. Freshen it up a bit.
Let’s have some new blood in there.
Bias?
They're ex professional players, some who have played at the highest level..
Bringing in someone else from where?
Welcome to the all new MOTD format, presented by Bob Smith who once played the second half in a semi final of the Johnstone's paint trophy with expert punditry from Eric Harris who has watched his local team play every Sunday morning down at the recreation ground and Julia Jones whose career was sadly ended in her fifth game for the Kingston kickers when she was chopped down from behind in a well dodgy tackle..
Meanwhile over on channel four the judging in the best in show us just about to start with Margaret Aspinwall making the big call as she likes fluffy cute dogs.."
You will probably have to address most of those questions to Mark Goldbridge who put the tweet up
The bit I tend to agree with is the played the game bias. Get some ex players who have played at the current elite level. Go the way of Monday night football on sky and some of these excellent Footie podcasters that are coming up.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t think Gary Lineker has anything to answer for and am not conflating the two issues. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Nobody. Last night was telling in itself that for all the furore over Lineker being suspended from MOTD, the severely reduced 20 minute version of it without presenters or commentary still got just as many views as it did with Lineker and friends presenting it.
Huge storm in a teacup over the weekend with absolutely zero impact on real world viewing numbers and reception.
Either keep MOTD in its current 20 minute format, or scrap it entirely if the only option is to reinstate Lineker. He's free to do the same kind of show on other TV channels. They'd probably fit his political leaning more anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
"Nobody. Last night was telling in itself that for all the furore over Lineker being suspended from MOTD, the severely reduced 20 minute version of it without presenters or commentary still got just as many views as it did with Lineker and friends presenting it.
Huge storm in a teacup over the weekend with absolutely zero impact on real world viewing numbers and reception.
Either keep MOTD in its current 20 minute format, or scrap it entirely if the only option is to reinstate Lineker. He's free to do the same kind of show on other TV channels. They'd probably fit his political leaning more anyway. "
Surely the measure would be if they keep getting those figures after the change of format? Sustained, not just the first one ever.
Gbat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nobody. Last night was telling in itself that for all the furore over Lineker being suspended from MOTD, the severely reduced 20 minute version of it without presenters or commentary still got just as many views as it did with Lineker and friends presenting it.
Huge storm in a teacup over the weekend with absolutely zero impact on real world viewing numbers and reception.
Either keep MOTD in its current 20 minute format, or scrap it entirely if the only option is to reinstate Lineker. He's free to do the same kind of show on other TV channels. They'd probably fit his political leaning more anyway.
Surely the measure would be if they keep getting those figures after the change of format? Sustained, not just the first one ever.
Gbat "
Yep good point, but the point I was making was that you'd have thought if popular support in society was so much behind Lineker you'd have seen an instant boycott of MOTD from the viewing masses to begin with.
Goes to show they really don't care that much. All they want to see is just football replays. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Saw this take this morning from my favourite YouTuber (in part due to meltdowns)
“Controversial take? MOTD is past it and needs major renovation anyway. Commentary, punditry, presentation hasn't move on in 30 years and still relies on the viewer naively lapping up "I've played the game" bias. Football moved on years ago”
I tend to agree. Once this Lineker fuss is over. Freshen it up a bit.
Let’s have some new blood in there.
Bias?
They're ex professional players, some who have played at the highest level..
Bringing in someone else from where?
Welcome to the all new MOTD format, presented by Bob Smith who once played the second half in a semi final of the Johnstone's paint trophy with expert punditry from Eric Harris who has watched his local team play every Sunday morning down at the recreation ground and Julia Jones whose career was sadly ended in her fifth game for the Kingston kickers when she was chopped down from behind in a well dodgy tackle..
Meanwhile over on channel four the judging in the best in show us just about to start with Margaret Aspinwall making the big call as she likes fluffy cute dogs..
You will probably have to address most of those questions to Mark Goldbridge who put the tweet up
The bit I tend to agree with is the played the game bias. Get some ex players who have played at the current elite level. Go the way of Monday night football on sky and some of these excellent Footie podcasters that are coming up.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t think Gary Lineker has anything to answer for and am not conflating the two issues. "
Cheers but I'll give him a miss Ty, he has his opinion and that's fine..
Don't dispute for a minute they aren't and all things need freshening up as other providers have done I just can't see the BBC or any of the others making such changes with their current system which works (granted they each control a percentage of what is a closed shop)..
Maybe with the uptick in different ways of listening and watching such as podcasts etc there's an opportunity to bring in guest pundits from that.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nobody. Last night was telling in itself that for all the furore over Lineker being suspended from MOTD, the severely reduced 20 minute version of it without presenters or commentary still got just as many views as it did with Lineker and friends presenting it.
Huge storm in a teacup over the weekend with absolutely zero impact on real world viewing numbers and reception.
Either keep MOTD in its current 20 minute format, or scrap it entirely if the only option is to reinstate Lineker. He's free to do the same kind of show on other TV channels. They'd probably fit his political leaning more anyway.
Surely the measure would be if they keep getting those figures after the change of format? Sustained, not just the first one ever.
Gbat
Yep good point, but the point I was making was that you'd have thought if popular support in society was so much behind Lineker you'd have seen an instant boycott of MOTD from the viewing masses to begin with.
Goes to show they really don't care that much. All they want to see is just football replays. "
There also might have been an element of morbid curiosity to see what was being shown.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nobody. Last night was telling in itself that for all the furore over Lineker being suspended from MOTD, the severely reduced 20 minute version of it without presenters or commentary still got just as many views as it did with Lineker and friends presenting it.
Huge storm in a teacup over the weekend with absolutely zero impact on real world viewing numbers and reception.
Either keep MOTD in its current 20 minute format, or scrap it entirely if the only option is to reinstate Lineker. He's free to do the same kind of show on other TV channels. They'd probably fit his political leaning more anyway.
Surely the measure would be if they keep getting those figures after the change of format? Sustained, not just the first one ever.
Gbat
Yep good point, but the point I was making was that you'd have thought if popular support in society was so much behind Lineker you'd have seen an instant boycott of MOTD from the viewing masses to begin with.
Goes to show they really don't care that much. All they want to see is just football replays.
There also might have been an element of morbid curiosity to see what was being shown.
"
If that is the case then we'll see viewership numbers crater over the next few weeks if the BBC dares to stand its ground and keep Lineker off air.
Not that I think the Beeb will mind if MOTD actually dies because of this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nobody. Last night was telling in itself that for all the furore over Lineker being suspended from MOTD, the severely reduced 20 minute version of it without presenters or commentary still got just as many views as it did with Lineker and friends presenting it.
Huge storm in a teacup over the weekend with absolutely zero impact on real world viewing numbers and reception.
Either keep MOTD in its current 20 minute format, or scrap it entirely if the only option is to reinstate Lineker. He's free to do the same kind of show on other TV channels. They'd probably fit his political leaning more anyway.
Surely the measure would be if they keep getting those figures after the change of format? Sustained, not just the first one ever.
Gbat
Yep good point, but the point I was making was that you'd have thought if popular support in society was so much behind Lineker you'd have seen an instant boycott of MOTD from the viewing masses to begin with.
Goes to show they really don't care that much. All they want to see is just football replays.
There also might have been an element of morbid curiosity to see what was being shown.
"
Agree, it wasn't good television and something the BBC will not want for next weekend..
There will be a decision taken to bring him back, have a review which addresses all of their contributors however they are contracted and apply some proper rules which work ..
They got themselves into a mess and sacking him would be the worst thing they could do now given the well publicised double standards for others who have shown political bias and still on air..
Whether in the long term he stays I'm not sure but they need a solution to try and stop the rot.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nobody. Last night was telling in itself that for all the furore over Lineker being suspended from MOTD, the severely reduced 20 minute version of it without presenters or commentary still got just as many views as it did with Lineker and friends presenting it.
Huge storm in a teacup over the weekend with absolutely zero impact on real world viewing numbers and reception.
Either keep MOTD in its current 20 minute format, or scrap it entirely if the only option is to reinstate Lineker. He's free to do the same kind of show on other TV channels. They'd probably fit his political leaning more anyway.
Surely the measure would be if they keep getting those figures after the change of format? Sustained, not just the first one ever.
Gbat
Yep good point, but the point I was making was that you'd have thought if popular support in society was so much behind Lineker you'd have seen an instant boycott of MOTD from the viewing masses to begin with.
Goes to show they really don't care that much. All they want to see is just football replays.
There also might have been an element of morbid curiosity to see what was being shown.
Agree, it wasn't good television and something the BBC will not want for next weekend..
There will be a decision taken to bring him back, have a review which addresses all of their contributors however they are contracted and apply some proper rules which work ..
They got themselves into a mess and sacking him would be the worst thing they could do now given the well publicised double standards for others who have shown political bias and still on air..
Whether in the long term he stays I'm not sure but they need a solution to try and stop the rot.."
Letting Lineker back would be an even worse decision than the original one to suspend him.
Because it would undeniably show that it's the tail wagging the dog. A football pundit being bigger than the BBC Director General or Chairman. You can just imagine the amount of culture war hay the Tories will make off Lineker getting reinstated, and it will be a lot worse and much more detrimental to the BBC than anything anyone outside of power criticises the BBC with words and viewing boycotts.
This is a one way road now. There's no turning back. If Lineker had a spine he'd leave the Beeb and go to any other competitor TV channel and do his own MOTD show with them. People who think that the BBC is for reversing forget about how they axed Clarkson last time and didn't reverse it, even though it effectively killed off Top Gear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”."
The daily hate cherry picking what suits their anti BBC agenda?
Well I am truly shocked..
Let me guess, they're going to apply that to Alan Sugar too and the BBC chairman under two investigations..
Like fuck are they.."
So do you think that the story is deliberately hateful because it's in the Daily Mail? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *avie65Man
over a year ago
In the west. |
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”.""
This is a remit or mission statement not a contract that he has signed. I'm sure any contract he has signed will be between him & the BBC and kept away from prying eyes and journalists. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”."
This is a remit or mission statement not a contract that he has signed. I'm sure any contract he has signed will be between him & the BBC and kept away from prying eyes and journalists. "
So do you think the Daily Mail purposely published this to cause misdirection, or is just giving its readers something to get outraged about? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *avie65Man
over a year ago
In the west. |
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”."
This is a remit or mission statement not a contract that he has signed. I'm sure any contract he has signed will be between him & the BBC and kept away from prying eyes and journalists.
So do you think the Daily Mail purposely published this to cause misdirection, or is just giving its readers something to get outraged about?"
Probably both. The DM does like to stir things up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”."
This is a remit or mission statement not a contract that he has signed. I'm sure any contract he has signed will be between him & the BBC and kept away from prying eyes and journalists.
So do you think the Daily Mail purposely published this to cause misdirection, or is just giving its readers something to get outraged about?
Probably both. The DM does like to stir things up. "
A newspaper that publishes this kind of shit stirring stuff should be avoided and not believed then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome.
I think you might have missed my point. I fully accept that they are the lawfully elected government of the UK.
I wasn’t talking about people who didn’t vote. Their views will remain unknown and un catered for.
My point was that off all the voters who voted, less than fifty percent voted Tory. The remainder voted for all the other parties put together. (I don’t know the actual figures but in essence that was what I was saying). More people voted Tory than any other individual party, but again, that’s not what I was saying.
More people who voted, didn’t vote Tory. So when somebody says “The politicians we elected.” I think it’s fair to say that a majority of us in fact did not vote for them. I’m not in that “we.”
I know it doesn’t affect the outcome under the current system, but that was never the point I was making.
My apologies if I haven’t been clear enough for you.
Gbat
Ok understand. But so what? What is your point?
He was originally answering a question but people didn’t seem to understand his answer. "
°°°
His answer was that the voting system doesn't represent the majority of the population because the winning party's set of votes counted was less than 50%
It's a clear enough point but an irrelevant one here as that's not how a democratic election is decided. And if labour had won under identical numbers, the same would be true of the combined losing parties for that election. I seriously doubt you'd be saying labour shouldn't be in charge unless they held a minimum of 51% of the public vote. You'd be flipping your position faster than I can say Keir Starmer....
Bit sore loser'ish to be picking over the bones of the voting system that was signed up for by participants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *avie65Man
over a year ago
In the west. |
"Gary Linekar, because he has done nothing wrong
Well, except for breaching his contract
Go ahead and quote the relevant part of his contract.
Quote from the Daily Mail says "The BBC’s remit says it is “committed to achieving due impartiality in all its output” and that “this commitment is fundamental to our reputation, our values and the trust of audiences”. Where Lineker’s stand may fall outside of the rules is a clause in the remit which says: “We must take care not to endorse those campaigns, or allow ourselves to be used to campaign to change public policy”."
This is a remit or mission statement not a contract that he has signed. I'm sure any contract he has signed will be between him & the BBC and kept away from prying eyes and journalists.
So do you think the Daily Mail purposely published this to cause misdirection, or is just giving its readers something to get outraged about?
Probably both. The DM does like to stir things up. A newspaper that publishes this kind of shit stirring stuff should be avoided and not believed then?"
Yes. It's been a long time since I bought a newspaper for this reason.
All newspapers are biased to some extent. Some of them are more extreme than others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome.
I think you might have missed my point. I fully accept that they are the lawfully elected government of the UK.
I wasn’t talking about people who didn’t vote. Their views will remain unknown and un catered for.
My point was that off all the voters who voted, less than fifty percent voted Tory. The remainder voted for all the other parties put together. (I don’t know the actual figures but in essence that was what I was saying). More people voted Tory than any other individual party, but again, that’s not what I was saying.
More people who voted, didn’t vote Tory. So when somebody says “The politicians we elected.” I think it’s fair to say that a majority of us in fact did not vote for them. I’m not in that “we.”
I know it doesn’t affect the outcome under the current system, but that was never the point I was making.
My apologies if I haven’t been clear enough for you.
Gbat
Ok understand. But so what? What is your point?
He was originally answering a question but people didn’t seem to understand his answer.
°°°
His answer was that the voting system doesn't represent the majority of the population because the winning party's set of votes counted was less than 50%
It's a clear enough point but an irrelevant one here as that's not how a democratic election is decided. And if labour had won under identical numbers, the same would be true of the combined losing parties for that election. I seriously doubt you'd be saying labour shouldn't be in charge unless they held a minimum of 51% of the public vote. You'd be flipping your position faster than I can say Keir Starmer....
Bit sore loser'ish to be picking over the bones of the voting system that was signed up for by participants. "
Yes given the open goal that labour now have, one wonders if the system should change so that no party can form a government unless they have over 50 per cent of the people voting for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Most voters didn't vote for the Tories. They aren't the government most people asked for.
Gbat
Think youll find they are. Its how democracy in this country works. If you dont vote, you dont get to moan when you dont like the outcome.
I think you might have missed my point. I fully accept that they are the lawfully elected government of the UK.
I wasn’t talking about people who didn’t vote. Their views will remain unknown and un catered for.
My point was that off all the voters who voted, less than fifty percent voted Tory. The remainder voted for all the other parties put together. (I don’t know the actual figures but in essence that was what I was saying). More people voted Tory than any other individual party, but again, that’s not what I was saying.
More people who voted, didn’t vote Tory. So when somebody says “The politicians we elected.” I think it’s fair to say that a majority of us in fact did not vote for them. I’m not in that “we.”
I know it doesn’t affect the outcome under the current system, but that was never the point I was making.
My apologies if I haven’t been clear enough for you.
Gbat
Ok understand. But so what? What is your point?
He was originally answering a question but people didn’t seem to understand his answer.
°°°
His answer was that the voting system doesn't represent the majority of the population because the winning party's set of votes counted was less than 50%
It's a clear enough point but an irrelevant one here as that's not how a democratic election is decided. And if labour had won under identical numbers, the same would be true of the combined losing parties for that election. I seriously doubt you'd be saying labour shouldn't be in charge unless they held a minimum of 51% of the public vote. You'd be flipping your position faster than I can say Keir Starmer....
Bit sore loser'ish to be picking over the bones of the voting system that was signed up for by participants. "
Was that long essay to me or GBat? I was just answering a question. I haven’t given any personal opinions on here. I’d be flipping my position? To what. You don’t know what my position is in the first place.
I assume it wasn’t to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today that they may be in trouble over accessibility laws for not providing any (optional) audio commentary with the show last night "
Its a beautiful thing. Neither did they have their allsorts of presenters... A lot of hassle for a show with very few viewers... I think im going to walk out in protest |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today that they may be in trouble over accessibility laws for not providing any (optional) audio commentary with the show last night
Its a beautiful thing. Neither did they have their allsorts of presenters... A lot of hassle for a show with very few viewers... I think im going to walk out in protest"
Numbers were up apparently but for week one. If it isn’t resolved ahead of MOTD2 tonight or next week we will see a sharp decrease |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nobody. Last night was telling in itself that for all the furore over Lineker being suspended from MOTD, the severely reduced 20 minute version of it without presenters or commentary still got just as many views as it did with Lineker and friends presenting it.
Huge storm in a teacup over the weekend with absolutely zero impact on real world viewing numbers and reception.
Either keep MOTD in its current 20 minute format, or scrap it entirely if the only option is to reinstate Lineker. He's free to do the same kind of show on other TV channels. They'd probably fit his political leaning more anyway.
Surely the measure would be if they keep getting those figures after the change of format? Sustained, not just the first one ever.
Gbat
Yep good point, but the point I was making was that you'd have thought if popular support in society was so much behind Lineker you'd have seen an instant boycott of MOTD from the viewing masses to begin with.
Goes to show they really don't care that much. All they want to see is just football replays.
There also might have been an element of morbid curiosity to see what was being shown.
Agree, it wasn't good television and something the BBC will not want for next weekend..
There will be a decision taken to bring him back, have a review which addresses all of their contributors however they are contracted and apply some proper rules which work ..
They got themselves into a mess and sacking him would be the worst thing they could do now given the well publicised double standards for others who have shown political bias and still on air..
Whether in the long term he stays I'm not sure but they need a solution to try and stop the rot..
Letting Lineker back would be an even worse decision than the original one to suspend him.
Because it would undeniably show that it's the tail wagging the dog. A football pundit being bigger than the BBC Director General or Chairman. You can just imagine the amount of culture war hay the Tories will make off Lineker getting reinstated, and it will be a lot worse and much more detrimental to the BBC than anything anyone outside of power criticises the BBC with words and viewing boycotts.
This is a one way road now. There's no turning back. If Lineker had a spine he'd leave the Beeb and go to any other competitor TV channel and do his own MOTD show with them. People who think that the BBC is for reversing forget about how they axed Clarkson last time and didn't reverse it, even though it effectively killed off Top Gear. "
I think compromise albeit fudged is the way they will go, if they pander to the right wing press they only serve to further cement the perception that they are being influenced by one side which led partially to the decision to suspend him..
We shall see in time.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *batMan
over a year ago
Alicante, Spain. (Sometimes in Wales) |
" His answer was that the voting system doesn't represent the majority of the population because the winning party's set of votes counted was less than 50%
It's a clear enough point but an irrelevant one here as that's not how a democratic election is decided. And if labour had won under identical numbers, the same would be true of the combined losing parties for that election. I seriously doubt you'd be saying labour shouldn't be in charge unless they held a minimum of 51% of the public vote. You'd be flipping your position faster than I can say Keir Starmer....
Bit sore loser'ish to be picking over the bones of the voting system that was signed up for by participants. "
Sigh ....
My point was that YOU said the current government are the people WE voted for and I simply said for most of us that's actually not the case.
You say it's not how Democracy works, but in fact it is how democracy works in numerous countries across the world. First Past the Post is just one democratic system. There are others, which are democratic, but different.
I actually stated in a post above that this is the same for any party that has won an UK election, so no cherry picking from me.
Flipping my position? (You specifically say YOU'D be flipping your position, ie, me)
Bit sore loserish?
Yet in a later post you say it's not aimed at an individual, just part of the discussion.
I don't really care, but so far you've said I am not making any points, just a personal attack on you, and now you say I am likely to flip my position and I'm a sore loser, only it's not aimed at me, it's just part of the discussion.
I still don't see which bit you could see as a personal attack.
Oh well.
Gbat
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
