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

[crazyfists]

I liked it better, crowd noise, no messing about, 20 mins job done.

[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?

[legs77]

I think as it was in the news it gathered much more attention so more people tuned in.

I put it on for about 1 minute so I would be classed as a viewer when I didn’t watch the whole programme.

End of the day Lineker is freelance and it is obvious the BBC have nothing on him so can’t sack him.

They can wait till his and the others contracts run out and not renew them this could happen like it did with Soccer Saturday on Sky which is sh*t now.

What is likely to happen in future is BBC workers will have to sign a contract that says what they can/can’t do or say.

Lineker is smug but he has been proven to be right on this.

[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!

[Magpies1959]

^^
Not just me then

[i961pie]

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!

😂

[BigFatPie]

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!

Nonsense. You perceive it like that because you and others of a similar mindset repeatedly obfuscate, bloviate and indulge in bad faith arguments designed to hide your views on a awkward subject like the one that got Lineker into trouble. The government does it as well when it tries to pretend that this bill is aimed at stopping people traffickers. It’s perfectly understandable I suppose, if I supported a policy that’s designed to stop most brown people from seeking refuge in the UK, aimed to traffick women and kids to Rwanda, and blocked help for people thrown into modern slavery I’d want to keep it quiet as well.

[upthemaggies]

Nonsense. You perceive it like that because you and others of a similar mindset repeatedly obfuscate, bloviate and indulge in bad faith arguments designed to hide your views on a awkward subject like the one that got Lineker into trouble. The government does it as well when it tries to pretend that this bill is aimed at stopping people traffickers. It’s perfectly understandable I suppose, if I supported a policy that’s designed to stop most brown people from seeking refuge in the UK, aimed to traffick women and kids to Rwanda, and blocked help for people thrown into modern slavery I’d want to keep it quiet as well.

Genuine question, why would they not want to remain in the EU and instead take a high risk crossing to Brexitland? I thought the left believed this country was a far worse and less welcoming place to live than the European Union, hence it being the cornerstone issue that's polarised politics ever since. Why wouldn't you be encouraging refugees to enjoy a better life and future in France, rather than in Nazi Britain?
If France etc. doesn't want them, why were the left so keen to remain in bed with those countries? Wouldn't that make the EU just as right wing and Nazi as us?