O/T:- So who prefers MOTD without pundits etc now?

[sidders]

I thought it was gutless and dull. Like a ghost ship. A newspaper made up of only pictures. I got so bored that I turned off halfway through.
Likewise with watching Notts against the dorks on BT. It was such a tedious match that without the commentary I would probably have turned that one off too.
El Sid

[LaughingMagpie]

It needed the commentary but i didn't miss the pundits talking drivel.

[upthemaggies]

It needed the commentary but i didn't miss the pundits talking drivel.

Apparently they're using the world feed for women's football today, so maybe they couldn't do that last night for contractual reasons or it was deliberate, maybe they'll sort it out for next week if it drags on. In some cases no commentary would definitely be an improvement on it being muted altogether. Personally I don't care if football is now on the BBC or not, I don't watch any of it. Public money would be better spent elsewhere.

Feel sorry for Radio Nottingham and the like who do a good job but have their budgets squeezed to pay massively inflated wages for millionaires like Lineker, Shearer etc, who are easily replaceable. Having a great career on the pitch doesn't make you anything special off it. Massive egos the lot of them and a sense of self importance.

[countygump]

Apparently they're using the world feed for women's football today, so maybe they couldn't do that last night for contractual reasons or it was deliberate, maybe they'll sort it out for next week if it drags on. In some cases no commentary would definitely be an improvement on it being muted altogether. Personally I don't care if football is now on the BBC or not, I don't watch any of it. Public money would be better spent elsewhere.

Feel sorry for Radio Nottingham and the like who do a good job but have their budgets squeezed to pay massively inflated wages for millionaires like Lineker, Shearer etc, who are easily replaceable. Having a great career on the pitch doesn't make you anything special off it. Massive egos the lot of them and a sense of self importance.

I can't even remember the last time I watched MOTD, It's The Plastic Prem and holds no interest for me. Given all the assets they have available, you would think the Beeb would have thrown a sub on? But as you say, UTM, possibly contractual issues.

[GranthamPie]

I can't even remember the last time I watched MOTD, It's The Plastic Prem and holds no interest for me. Given all the assets they have available, you would think the Beeb would have thrown a sub on? But as you say, UTM, possibly contractual issues.

I haven’t watched MOTD in years… years and years. I can honestly say, hand on heart, I have no idea who won the Premiership last season or the seasons before. I simply don’t give a fcuk about plastic football and the money men or the people who never watch live football.

[sidders]

I haven’t watched MOTD in years… years and years. I can honestly say, hand on heart, I have no idea who won the Premiership last season or the seasons before. I simply don’t give a fcuk about plastic football and the money men or the people who never watch live football.

Interesting comments, Grantham. So does this mean you would hate it and stop attending if Notts were to aspire to Premier League status?

The sheer nastiness on here towards Lineker has me puzzled. He clearly has the respect of people like Ian Wright and you can see that when he interviews high profile people within the game he has their respect too. I also think he's good at what he does, which is compering a football show. But yes, I would agree that he is paid an obscene sum but then that's football for you. So is it an element of jealousy at his wealth and a resentment of the permasmile?

[jackal2]

It needed the commentary but i didn't miss the pundits talking drivel.

Speaking with various people I've heard this opinion more than any other over the past couple of days.

The BBC has no legitimate reason to pay Gary Lineker and the likes of Shearer, Wright and Richards the ridiculous amount of public money they do to needlessly chit-chat between matches. The BBC currently enjoys a privileged position courtesy of their Royal Charter which is supposed to remove the need for them to compete with other channels, so why do they need such 'big names' at such huge cost, especially if many viewers feel they could do without presenters (if not commentators) at all?

Let's face it, the BBC these days largely acts like a commercial channel, and they're as obsessed as all the others with getting the highest ratings and attracting 'prestige' names (such as they are!), so it's time for them to operate properly and fairly in that market on the same terms as the other broadcasters.

[BigFatPie]

Speaking with various people I've heard this opinion more than any other over the past couple of days.

The BBC has no legitimate reason to pay Gary Lineker and the likes of Shearer, Wright and Richards the ridiculous amount of public money they do to needlessly chit-chat between matches. The BBC currently enjoys a privileged position courtesy of their Royal Charter which is supposed to remove the need for them to compete with other channels, so why do they need such 'big names' at such huge cost, especially if many viewers feel they could do without presenters (if not commentators) at all?

Let's face it, the BBC these days largely acts like a commercial channel, and they're as obsessed as all the others with getting the highest ratings and attracting 'prestige' names (such as they are!), so it's time for them to operate properly and fairly in that market on the same terms as the other broadcasters.

They do ‘operate properly and fairly in the market on the same terms as other broadcasters’. That’s why they’ve got to pay Lineker well otherwise he’d go elsewhere. He probably will now anyway, so the opponents of public service broadcasting will get their way eventually.

It’s hilarious how the free speech absolutists pretend that they don’t mind Lineker or anyone else saying what they like but what they’ve now decided is that they don’t really like the chat about var after a game.

[jackal2]

They do ‘operate properly and fairly in the market on the same terms as other broadcasters’.

Except that the BBC can legally demand money with menaces, while other broadcasters sell advertising or attract subscribers.

It’s hilarious how the free speech absolutists pretend that they don’t mind Lineker or anyone else saying what they like but what they’ve now decided is that they don’t really like the chat about var after a game.

My view is still that Lineker should be able to Tweet his opinion and should only be subject to impartiality rules when presenting a BBC programme. As other posters have illustrated with various examples, it's practically impossible to enforce a rule where people employed by the BBC must be impartial in all aspects of their lives, including on their own social media channels.


I've noticed that every time a poster expresses a view that doesn't fit with your stereotype of who you think they are and what you think they should think, you tell them "that's not what you really think", then you replace it with your opinion of what they think, and then you argue with that rather than what they actually said. I must say, it's an ingenious way of only ever engaging with the world on your own terms!

[i961pie]

All it needs is a presenter and decent commentators with a couple of interviews after the game.
It doesn't need The likes of Micah Richards belly laughing through every programme.