Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Man City v Liverpool on BBC tonight, Hansen, Shearer, Dixon and Lawrenson of course not forgetting Lineker, they must have money to burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Man City v Liverpool on BBC tonight, Hansen, Shearer, Dixon and Lawrenson of course not forgetting Lineker, they must have money to burn. And not an opinion worth hearing from any of them....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bs3 Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 I much prefer the pundits on BBC to rest . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 I much prefer the pundits on BBC to rest . What 5 of them?, for a game that hasn't even sold out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 What 5 of them?, for a game that hasn't even sold out? Does it really matter how many pundits they have on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsobigfatdave Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Lets have Robbie Savage, Mick McCarthey and Neil Warnock...get rid of Scarface, Bigears and Walnut....have a bit of eye candy with a Brain who knows a bit about footy (Charlie Webster fits the bill here) to compare..... that would be a bloody brilliant recipe for a footy review show. walnut really sends me to sleep....miserable looking git, same hairstyle now than when he was playing a right Noel edmonds... Boring ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Does it really matter how many pundits they have on? When Hansen pocketed 750k from the ******* BBC last year, multiply that by 4 plus what ******* Lineker earns, yes I think it does, probably why the BBC serves up so much shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Got to say I'd much rather hear what Hansen and Shearer have to say on games than any Sky pundit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Man City v Liverpool on BBC tonight, Hansen, Shearer, Dixon and Lawrenson of course not forgetting Lineker, they must have money to burn. No sign of austerity there then. Just pass the bill on down to the hoi polloi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingswood Robin Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 When Hansen pocketed 750k from the ******* BBC last year, multiply that by 4 plus what ******* Lineker earns, yes I think it does, probably why the BBC serves up so much shit. Couldn't agree more. It doesn't sit very well with these austere times does it. I've often thought that recent football coverage has too much going on other than the football, especially highlights programmes. Less chat, get cameras to the games, keep it simple, value for money. Then maybe we'll have a few less repeats and repeats disguised as something else. The creative repeats department at the BBC must be very busy these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Casual Connoisseur Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 When Hansen pocketed 750k from the ******* BBC last year, multiply that by 4 plus what ******* Lineker earns, yes I think it does, probably why the BBC serves up so much shit. Amen, brother, amen. I boycotted the BBC a long while ago, for reasons you mentioned above, along with a few other issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 When Hansen pocketed 750k from the ******* BBC last year, multiply that by 4 plus what ******* Lineker earns, yes I think it does, probably why the BBC serves up so much shit. Fully agree but, you left Hansen is a bellend out tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 Got to say I'd much rather hear what Hansen and Shearer have to say on games than any Sky pundit. Can't agree with you. Hansen and Shearer must be the most dreary and dullest pundits on TV. Same old same old. Lee Dixon is the only one who I have any time for. Give me Sky any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iWurzel Posted January 11, 2012 Report Share Posted January 11, 2012 I may be in the minority on this one but it always amazes me how anyone can feel cheated out of their £120 a year or whatever a TV licence costs. For me I watch probably 10-20 games of football per year on the BBC, plus 38 episodes of MOTD. Plus plenty of factual shit like Frozen Planet, Planet Earth etc etc in addition to the likes of Top Gear, some food programs and films etc. The mrs also watches the god awful soaps they put on there several billion times a year. 4 games at City costs £120-ish and you can bet your ass there's a lot more disappointment there Quite how anyone can get worked up about how many pundits cover a game of footy is beyond me. Sky charge £70+ PER MONTH for their top TV package. But no one moans because they have Gary Neville, Ray Wilkins, Jamie Redknapp, Alan Smith and Graeme Souness at a match. The only reason people bitch about the BBC is because they don't like being told to pay the BBC when they can voluntarily choose not to pay Sky. But still do. And then moan about the BBC. Yawn. No doubt someone else will be along to bitch about the audacity of a BBC radio pundit driving to Barnsley when he could have gone by solar powered bicycle. Bore off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mendip City Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I may be in the minority on this one but it always amazes me how anyone can feel cheated out of their £120 a year or whatever a TV licence costs. For me I watch probably 10-20 games of football per year on the BBC, plus 38 episodes of MOTD. Plus plenty of factual shit like Frozen Planet, Planet Earth etc etc in addition to the likes of Top Gear, some food programs and films etc. The mrs also watches the god awful soaps they put on there several billion times a year. 4 games at City costs £120-ish and you can bet your ass there's a lot more disappointment there Quite how anyone can get worked up about how many pundits cover a game of footy is beyond me. Sky charge £70+ PER MONTH for their top TV package. But no one moans because they have Gary Neville, Ray Wilkins, Jamie Redknapp, Alan Smith and Graeme Souness at a match. The only reason people bitch about the BBC is because they don't like being told to pay the BBC when they can voluntarily choose not to pay Sky. But still do. And then moan about the BBC. Yawn. No doubt someone else will be along to bitch about the audacity of a BBC radio pundit driving to Barnsley when he could have gone by solar powered bicycle. Bore off. Agree with every single word of that. It's also worth mentioning the BBC's excellent (and free) radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melksham Red Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Got to say I'd much rather hear what Hansen and Shearer have to say on games than any Sky pundit. Jamie Redknapp and Gary Neville, now theres a recipe to induce a sudden on set of a coma! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I may be in the minority on this one but it always amazes me how anyone can feel cheated out of their £120 a year or whatever a TV licence costs. For me I watch probably 10-20 games of football per year on the BBC, plus 38 episodes of MOTD. Plus plenty of factual shit like Frozen Planet, Planet Earth etc etc in addition to the likes of Top Gear, some food programs and films etc. The mrs also watches the god awful soaps they put on there several billion times a year. 4 games at City costs £120-ish and you can bet your ass there's a lot more disappointment there Quite how anyone can get worked up about how many pundits cover a game of footy is beyond me. Sky charge £70+ PER MONTH for their top TV package. But no one moans because they have Gary Neville, Ray Wilkins, Jamie Redknapp, Alan Smith and Graeme Souness at a match. The only reason people bitch about the BBC is because they don't like being told to pay the BBC when they can voluntarily choose not to pay Sky. But still do. And then moan about the BBC. Yawn. No doubt someone else will be along to bitch about the audacity of a BBC radio pundit driving to Barnsley when he could have gone by solar powered bicycle. Bore off. You might think a mandatory £120 is value for money, because you get to watch a couPle of mating penguins to whack away to, but many find it a piss take. A stealth tax for something that for something they don't want. All very North Korea. Yay you get to watch 38 episodes of match of the day. It must be like groundhog day every Saturday as the same bland shit gets rolled out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
054123 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 <br />When Hansen pocketed 750k from the ******* BBC last year, multiply that by 4 plus what ******* Lineker earns, yes I think it does, probably why the BBC serves up so much shit.<br /><br /><br /><br /> Ha ha, brilliant! You're alternative to the unbelieavable service and choice across all platforms, that the BBC serves up is far better. What else can i moan about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richwwtk Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 You might think a mandatory £120 is value for money, because you get to watch a couPle of mating penguins to whack away to, but many find it a piss take. A stealth tax for something that for something they don't want. All very North Korea. Yay you get to watch 38 episodes of match of the day. It must be like groundhog day every Saturday as the same bland shit gets rolled out. So you never watch or listen to any BBC output? £120 a year is more than worth it just to be rid of the frickking adverts, the very reason why I never watch anything on commercial TV unless I have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
054123 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 <br />You might think a mandatory £120 is value for money, because you get to watch a couPle of mating penguins to whack away to, but many find it a piss take. A stealth tax for something that for something they don't want. All very North Korea.<br /><br />Yay you get to watch 38 episodes of match of the day. It must be like groundhog day every Saturday as the same bland shit gets rolled out.<br /> Right on brother, the alterntive you suggested sounds much better. Sign me up! It can be just like America then where the media on offer is bullsh!t and slowly becoming almost completely dominated by the right. Just like our 'free' press in this country! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 So you never watch or listen to any BBC output? £120 a year is more than worth it just to be rid of the frickking adverts, the very reason why I never watch anything on commercial TV unless I have to. Nope, why would I? Stopped listening to 5 live years ago. The news output is subpar to sky and al jeazera. Adverts don't bother me, they're gone in 30 seconds thanks to sky +. My daughter watches cbeebies in fairness, but you could probably put anything soft and flashy on and she'd be happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
054123 Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 <br />Nope, why would I? Stopped listening to 5 live years ago. The news output is subpar to sky and al jeazera. Adverts don't bother me, they're gone in 30 seconds thanks to sky +. <br /><br />My daughter watches cbeebies in fairness, but you could probably put anything soft and flashy on and she'd be happy<br /> What? You watch your telly an hour in arrears? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exAtyeoMax Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Can't agree with you. Hansen and Shearer must be the most dreary and dullest pundits on TV. Same old same old. Lee Dixon is the only one who I have any time for. Give me Sky any day. I think Hansen is the best pundit around and Dixon is one of the worst!! Dont like or dislike shearer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshy Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Right on brother, the alterntive you suggested sounds much better. Sign me up! It can be just like America then where the media on offer is bullsh!t and slowly becoming almost completely dominated by the right. Just like our 'free' press in this country! And the BBC has a strong left-wing bias. You only have to watch their edited parliamentary highlights to grasp that point. By the way, the licence fee stands at £145.50, capped by the Tories to 2016. Along with the freezing of Council Tax this is at least something the Conservatives have got right, putting a brake upon the carefree spending of spendthrift public bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 Got to say I'd much rather hear what Hansen and Shearer have to say on games than any Sky pundit. I like the bbc and sky. Only problem with sky is that they now have gary neville as a "pundit" Cant stand the bloke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted January 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 <br /><br /><br /> Ha ha, brilliant! You're alternative to the unbelieavable service and choice across all platforms, that the BBC serves up is far better. What else can i moan about? My actual point is why does it need 4 summarisers for a game that the fans did not think was that important, it was not a sell out in fact up to 5,000 down on a full house, sure 4 summarisers is over kill and a waste of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I may be in the minority on this one but it always amazes me how anyone can feel cheated out of their £120 a year or whatever a TV licence costs. For me I watch probably 10-20 games of football per year on the BBC, plus 38 episodes of MOTD. Plus plenty of factual shit like Frozen Planet, Planet Earth etc etc in addition to the likes of Top Gear, some food programs and films etc. The mrs also watches the god awful soaps they put on there several billion times a year. 4 games at City costs £120-ish and you can bet your ass there's a lot more disappointment there Quite how anyone can get worked up about how many pundits cover a game of footy is beyond me. Sky charge £70+ PER MONTH for their top TV package. But no one moans because they have Gary Neville, Ray Wilkins, Jamie Redknapp, Alan Smith and Graeme Souness at a match. The only reason people bitch about the BBC is because they don't like being told to pay the BBC when they can voluntarily choose not to pay Sky. But still do. And then moan about the BBC. Yawn. No doubt someone else will be along to bitch about the audacity of a BBC radio pundit driving to Barnsley when he could have gone by solar powered bicycle. Bore off. I choose to pay for Sky and don't complain about it but that's not the crux of this argument. I happen to think that the BBC's coverage of sport in general is sub-standard to Sky. Not just football either, take cricket, rugby or more recently darts all great examples of the difference between them. I appreciate that the BBC don't have the same resources or number of channels as Sky but that should not have an effect on the quality of programmes like MOTD. Imo the BBC look like amateurs in comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 What? You watch your telly an hour in arrears? I don't need to let tv schedules dictate when I watch something (which is limited these days). Sky anytime has 0 adds, same as the anytime service on Virgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted January 12, 2012 Report Share Posted January 12, 2012 I much prefer the pundits on BBC to rest . Even if you say it cost us all in the region of £150000 to have all of them there just for last night? I'm basing that on Hansen being on a 4 year contract worth £1.4m a year (as reported by the times). I would say a few are on more and a few on less but he basically has to do about 50 days "work" (that work being watching football and forming an opinion, something everyone on here seems to be able to do) a year for 1.4m. 1.4m that is taken as a tax! The BBC is supposed to be a social enterprise that as far as I'm aware is not for profit - all I can see is pigs at a trough under the mass illusion that they have to pay the "going rate". IMO the BBC has ramped up the cost of these celebrities for years to the point where the going rate for someone like Linker cant be afforded by real private TV companies, and we all have to pay for this privalige through tax. Another sign that those at the top get rich and can live a life of luxurey at the expense of the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.