Norman

3 minutes ago, therealhantsram said:

They are busy working for a middle-eastern TV company at the moment, where their views on women fit in perfectly.

23 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

Does anybody know how Vicki Sparks got a job?

I have zero problem with female commentators, but I was listening to a game in the car on 5Live a few days ago and she literally missed 3 consecutive goals because she was waffling.

I *think* it was Clinton Morison who was with her and on one occasion it was him who said 'they've scored again'. 

Then last night or the night before I was listening when John Murray dived back in when they were getting a report from another game to catch a goal being scored.

I'm all for having women commentate, but not if they'r incompetent and just making the numbers up.

Bring back Andy Gray and Richard Keys.

Rashford has had a Sibley game here.

8 minutes ago, Derbados said:

Rashfords been awful so far 

He's useless. It's coming off his shin, his heel, he's losing his man from their goal kicks by about 30 yards everytime. 

Get him off.

Oh wait, they are level.

The Germans look really dodgy when teams actually high press.

We tore them apart for 15 minutes and scored 3 goals doing it , Japan really should be level.

18 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Talking of ignorance - maybe you missed the post where moderators pointed out that ArchieD had written 4 times as many posts as the the next most prolific poster in a couple of the more contentious threads?

 

 

To quote that moderator, "More than 1 in 4 posts are from you, more than double the next active poster".

That next poster would be you, by the way. Who happens to share the second highest post count with another poster who disagrees with @Archied. Not really outlandish that he has over double the posts of the next poster when that is taken into account.

Not like you to be right though, to be fair. 

Someone makes fair points about a topic - next logical step is to accuse them of obsession. The weakest of arguments and the most pathetic of attempts to demean someone.

Someone posts a lot on a topic - next logical step is to accuse them of posting too much even though the accusers are the ones that post the most in this section and like to have their opinions heard the most.... then moan when someone counters their opinion.

Welcome to the echo chamber, then.

Tolerance is the new intolerant. Self-awareness replaced by ignorance.

Who nose how long injury time will be.

5 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

He once headbutted Robbie Savage, so he's all right by me.

I don't mind him. Rather have Dion than Martin Keown. A man you'd look at and say he's made for commentary, until you heard him.

Dion 'here we have a presentable 2 bed terraced with lots of potential' Dublin.

Knows a good sized kitchen but not the offside rule

1 hour ago, VulcanRam said:

Some of us will, but presumably @Normanand @Gaspode's son won't, and maybe not even you @Davidon the basis they don't consume any BBC product at all, therefore won't be watching the football or the news and won't be made aware of it via any radio station or the internet.

We can report back if you'd like. ?

I've paid £160 for the 2 or 3 games so yeah I will. But I could watch them all on ITV and not be bothered if that's the way it went. As long as the World Cup and Euros don't get sold to subscription channels, then ITV2 could show the football presented by Gemma Collins and I wouldn't care.

Anyway, for those that read posts, I stated I use the website. But I'd probably still use it with ads on. Doesn't stop me going on SKY's.

But whatever, the main point of my post was to state they go around chasing and wasting money on the wrong audiences. Nothing they could put on tele will want me to continue paying £160 a year.

Imagine waiting all week to watch a programme at 8pm on a Friday night.......us young'uns find that ridiculous. 

I will still pay the fee, however, because I am part of a society that finds the service valuable and some people get far more than their money's worth from the service. And that's fair enough - just because I don't doesn't mean I have to be part of the anti-BBC brigade. I just dont want them to chase my viewership. They wont get it because they can't offer me anything i can't already get. My criticism is wasting millions on s*it and taking away local services.

No doubt people will just concentrate on snippets of this post and ignore the point. 

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

So you don't watch any BBC TV or listen to radio or use the website.

Well I do.

You ain't under 35. Nor did you read my post. 

10 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Crazy thing is that a lot of their ‘target’ audience don’t listen to radio and don’t watch TV. My lad is 22 - he streams any content he wants via Spotify or Netflix/Amazon Prime - he’s simply not interested in anything the BBC produces yet they insist that they want to produce more content for his generation and sod the older folk who rely on local radio and TV…..

Finally, someone has got to the point. It has f*** all to do with politics or who thinks the BBC is bias or not.

I'm 34, I don't use any of the services apart from BBC Sport website. I don't want to make sweeping generalisations, but plenty have already on this thread so....£160 is a rip off, for me and anyone under 35.

But £160 is obviously cheap for others who listen to radio etc. But if they keep wasting money chasing the wrong audiences, then services like the ones being cut make it even more ridiculous.

Just now, Stive Pesley said:

It's a tricky one for sure.

Don't publish that data and it's "what are they trying to hide from us! It's a conspiracy!"

Do publish it, and despite the obvious caveats you mention it will be the purest form of raw data - ripe to be shaped into whatever conclusion the "it's a conspiracy!" lot want to draw from it

None of this is productive, none of it is healthy for the minds of those that spend all day flailing angrily at their keyboards

People need to start focussing on being positive and making the most of their lives

Unless of course, on your death bed you really think you'll be saying "My one regret? I just wish I'd spent more time on the internet arguing with strangers"

Did you mean to describe yourself there?

10 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Agreed. And no one is accusing you of having an issue with an immigrants colour.

The fact remains though that the UKs response to the Ukrainian crisis has been one of the most openly racist policies of my lifetime

I have good friends in Leicester whose kids have recently left home so they applied to house a Ukrainian refugee.

They were not only paid by the government to do this, but they also saw that the lady they took in was fast tracked for job interviews, offered free training for jobs that she had no skills in, and then once she got a job was offered subsidised housing

She was fleeing a warzone. The UK wasn't the "first safe country she passed through".  No different to many refugees from Africa or Asia.

There is no other explanation for the disparity in treatment. 

 

I have a feeling gender plays a big part.

36 minutes ago, David said:

Not XR, but may as well be.

 

Waitrose, Fortnum and Mason, Marks and Spencers, Harrods......

Milk pours all across the UK, but only posh shops Mum and Dad shop in.

Do they clear this up afterwards? Or is that left to someone on close to minimum wage to do on their behalf?

Blue, green or pink in their hair?

Shouting and screaming?

Straight out of university?

Thought so. The graduate job market in social studies is a tough one to crack.

Glue them to the job centre desk until they get a job.

7 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

 

Her and most of the cabinet are educated idiots.

For £46,000 a year, you'd think Eton would churn-out a few useful ones?

Trouble is, the useful ones are a mile to the East making all the money

49 minutes ago, Ellafella said:

This was me waking up from my night shift to see WhatsApps from my Dad saying Collins has scored. And then the next message saying we had won.

Not sure which was more surreal. My Dad using WhatsApp or Collins scoring and us winning away.

Great way to wake up though.

There's no stalemate in the war at the minute.

The Ukranians have thousands of actual Russian troops surrounded in the city of Lyman. Supply roads are cut off, and once that falls I believe there's one more city with very strong defence and supply lines in the North that Ukraine need to take and a fast land grab will be on again. Probably bigger in scale than the first land grab. They are already crossing the main rivers and natural obstacles in that region ready for the offensive.

The assumption is the Ukranians will then  dig in defence and supply lines 20-50km from the Russian border over Winter in that region, making any Russain advances into Ukraine in the Sping impossible without losing huge numbers of men.

Rather than showing Southgate in a positive light, that 10 minute spell shows me exactly why he needs to go.

11 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

No - I fully accept your point, and have done all along. That is what I want

You on the other hand are unable to defend the disparity in the size of the tax breaks between the richest and the poorest. Because it really is indefensible

The richest 5% of people in the UK will be at least £8k per year better off, compared to the average person who will be £400 per year better off. How is that fair? Food, petrol, energy - costs the same to all of us

If you swerve the question again I will take that you agree but you're too stubborn to admit it

 

I have no idea or knowledge of this latest budget.

But isn't this just a question of percentages? You lower taxes, those who earn more will, in monetary terms, be better off - but if you raise taxes the opposite happens. 

Or has there been more tax breaks for all those earning more money?

That 400 really should include 600 more due to handouts for energy bills the wealthy don't get too, shouldn't it?

I'm no expert, though. I'm sure someone on here is.

Just now, jono said:

I’m inclined to agree. Short preseason excuses and fitness building are running out of rope for me. Yet I know from the good bits that we have some sound players, many with an elevated skill level for this division. I’d suggest that in the last 2 games we have under performed. I’m not “entitled” .. This is a tough league with some good footballers, no game is a forgone conclusion but with the quality we have, we should have a better yield of points and not be falling off a form cliff which the last 2 games seem to be pointing to. … OK rolls sleeves up, go again and as old school reports used to say .. must try harder. 

Plus the fact these inept away displays with the same mistakes and lack of goals have been going for years - and Rosenior is the common denominator. 

I hope he turns it around, but he can't be free of criticism. Some of these performances go beyond just this group of players.

2 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

I truly hope that the entitled bunch on here, at some point, understand that transitioning from a club staring in to the abyss to one competing at the top of a division may, you know, take a bit of time?

Nah, not having this "like" farming nonsense. 

In isolation, this squad should be doing better than it is. Especially away from home. It's as simple as that.