The former police detective who exposed Jimmy Savile a decade ago says that he is now working on bringing down another famous “very significant” and “untouchable” sex offender.
The former police detective who exposed Jimmy Savile a decade ago says that he is now working on bringing down another famous “very significant” and “untouchable” sex offender.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
I've only done a small amount of scuba, and only inland. But I've known people who were semi-pro, and chatted to professionals. Yes, your scenario could work; but there's also a lot that could go wrong, and be detected. As an example, leaving aside the divers, you need timers. These are simple, but also complex to make reliable (and waterproof, etc). even access to suitable explosives.
The more complex you make it, the less likely it is to be relative amateurs. That does not mean it is a state actor (it might have been PMCs, companies or mercenaries), but it is far from unskilled.
I would bet oil industry divers - there’s quite a few about. They are often certified on underwater explosives as well. Bringing their own doctors sounds like the kind of thing the oil industry guys I knew would have done.
Access to explosives would be not impossible for such people. The timers would be out of a box.
All the setup would have been done on the surface. Drop the stuff down, push into position, magnets, press button.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
I don’t think it’s because of discrimination, on the whole. More related to career/family choices etc, plus historically careers chosen by women around childcare. I detest the thought of people being paid differently for equal work, but the gender pay gap isn’t really about that. It’s a conversation about how society values or doesn’t child raising.
The former police detective who exposed Jimmy Savile a decade ago says that he is now working on bringing down another famous “very significant” and “untouchable” sex offender.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
An ex-colleague of mine used to spend many weekends diving in the North Sea, in not much shallower waters. The team he was part of located several World War 1 wrecks, mainly submarines.
He would almost certainly have been on mixed gas - the North Sea is generally a bit deep for regular air. I’d love to visit some of the Jutland wrecks, but I would need to do the training all over again, now.
He was trimix-trained. He came in one Monday saying they'd just identified a submarine (German, I think). Identifying thew wrecks was apparently half the problem. Finding a wreck was easy; working out what you'd found, and whether it had been found before, was more difficult.
He also played octopush, which is *really* violent.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
Is the location of the pipeline - to 10 meters or so - widely known? Because you're not going to be able to see it from the surface.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Yes. The changing of the guard at Radio 2, to make way for all the folks now getting too old for Radio 1.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
I have and I suspect the difference in tone to TMS is deliberate, not an artefact of poor presenters. Talk sports demographic is not the same as the TMS audience.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I don’t dislike Lineker, but I do think he is vastly overpaid from Licence fee funds.
The former police detective who exposed Jimmy Savile a decade ago says that he is now working on bringing down another famous “very significant” and “untouchable” sex offender.
I don't know anything, and have no evidence for that, but most such stories end up being full of bovine manure.
If someone genuinely had something serious, they wouldn't reveal it so unprofessionally. The very fact they're talking in public implies there's nothing there.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Or look what happened to Top Gear when Clarkson, May and Hammond moved on. Still there but a shadow of its former self.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
Is the location of the pipeline - to 10 meters or so - widely known? Because you're not going to be able to see it from the surface.
It’s on navigation charts - so that some damn fool doesn’t anchor right on it. These things aren’t hidden.
A friend who owns a moderate motor yacht in Poole has a sonar setup that, for not very much, gives a picture of the bottom that is 3D and startling in clarity. You can see features the size of house bricks clearly and sharply. A pipeline would be impossible to miss with that.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
You're a football fan. More specifically, you're a Leicester fan, living in Leicester. I might respectfully suggest that is why you 'think' that.
I don’t think it’s because of discrimination, on the whole. More related to career/family choices etc, plus historically careers chosen by women around childcare. I detest the thought of people being paid differently for equal work, but the gender pay gap isn’t really about that. It’s a conversation about how society values or doesn’t child raising.
It's because in valuing things in monetary ways (like pension provision) we don't value bringing up children properly.
We can if we like place an economic value on all sorts of things - like the conservation of rain forest or the capercaillie or corn bunting.
We don't have to undervalue women, but as a society we choose to.
I doubt if the work women do in bringing up children is even shown in GDP figures.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
MOTD2 has completely different fixtures so is not a proper A¦B test.
The fact that Saturday has more goals, more fixtures and more big fixtures that were not televised live might also be factors in the ratings.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
Famously never got booked in his whole playing career. Quite the angel.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
I've only done a small amount of scuba, and only inland. But I've known people who were semi-pro, and chatted to professionals. Yes, your scenario could work; but there's also a lot that could go wrong, and be detected. As an example, leaving aside the divers, you need timers. These are simple, but also complex to make reliable (and waterproof, etc). even access to suitable explosives.
The more complex you make it, the less likely it is to be relative amateurs. That does not mean it is a state actor (it might have been PMCs, companies or mercenaries), but it is far from unskilled.
I would bet oil industry divers - there’s quite a few about. They are often certified on underwater explosives as well. Bringing their own doctors sounds like the kind of thing the oil industry guys I knew would have done.
Access to explosives would be not impossible for such people. The timers would be out of a box.
All the setup would have been done on the surface. Drop the stuff down, push into position, magnets, press button.
Incidentally, my dad once hired professional divers to work on a complex job... in Derby. It was a difficult and dangerous environment, which one described as a little akin to wreck diving. In Derby.
Also incidentally, there is a big demand for divers inland, as all major bridges with piers in water, have to have the piers inspected regularly for scour. This often requires divers in the water, even if it is not deep.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
Is the location of the pipeline - to 10 meters or so - widely known? Because you're not going to be able to see it from the surface.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Or look what happened to Top Gear when Clarkson, May and Hammond moved on. Still there but a shadow of its former self.
"Top Gear is like doing a jigsaw - a pointless way to pass the time until you die!"
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
Is the location of the pipeline - to 10 meters or so - widely known? Because you're not going to be able to see it from the surface.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
You're a football fan. More specifically, you're a Leicester fan, living in Leicester. I might respectfully suggest that is why you 'think' that.
He's decent enough, JJ, but not one of the truly great presenters. In fact I cannot think of a great soccer presenter. There are some very good ones - Pat Nevin springs to mind - but none that would approach the truly great status of, say, a Richie Benaud in cricket or Cliff Morgan in rugby.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
You're a football fan. More specifically, you're a Leicester fan, living in Leicester. I might respectfully suggest that is why you 'think' that.
He's decent enough, JJ, but not one of the truly great presenters. In fact I cannot think of a great soccer presenter. There are some very good ones - Pat Nevin springs to mind - but none that would approach the truly great status of, say, a Richie Benaud in cricket or Cliff Morgan in rugby.
John Arlott and Dan Maskell shouldn't be overlooked.
I'm struggling even now to understand what "stop the boats" is really about apart from Suella Braverman putting down a marker for the next Conservative leadership election.
Oddly enough both her proposals and Starmer's response between them have the kernel of a policy. It's clear the asylum application process needs to be overhauled and it's also clear improved cross-border co-operation to tackle the people smuggling gangs would be a big help.
I'd also be looking at the black economy in the construction and food industries into which so many migrants can seemingly disappear.
Yousaf now has 16 SNP MPs backing him to 2 for Forbes and 1 for Regan and 30 SNP MSPs backing him to just 10 for Forbes and 0 for Regan.
The vast majority of SNP representatives at Holyrood and Westminster will have voted against Forbes then if she does produce a shock win against Yousaf with SNP members to become SNP leader and FM https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779?s=20
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
You're a football fan. More specifically, you're a Leicester fan, living in Leicester. I might respectfully suggest that is why you 'think' that.
He's decent enough, JJ, but not one of the truly great presenters. In fact I cannot think of a great soccer presenter. There are some very good ones - Pat Nevin springs to mind - but none that would approach the truly great status of, say, a Richie Benaud in cricket or Cliff Morgan in rugby.
John Arlott and Dan Maskell shouldn't be overlooked.
Terrible commentators also cannot be ignored. James Hunt was a great driver, but a terrible commentator at first. What saved him was the fact that the great Murray Walker seemed to hate him at times. You could almost hear them fighting for the microphone. The few times they disagreed were hilarious.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
You're a football fan. More specifically, you're a Leicester fan, living in Leicester. I might respectfully suggest that is why you 'think' that.
He's decent enough, JJ, but not one of the truly great presenters. In fact I cannot think of a great soccer presenter. There are some very good ones - Pat Nevin springs to mind - but none that would approach the truly great status of, say, a Richie Benaud in cricket or Cliff Morgan in rugby.
John Arlott and Dan Maskell shouldn't be overlooked.
Terrible commentators also cannot be ignored. James Hunt was a great driver, but a terrible commentator at first. What saved him was the fact that the great Murray Walker seemed to hate him at times. You could almost hear them fighting for the microphone. The few times they disagreed were hilarious.
I certainly would not overlook Arlott or Maskell.
If you wanted an example of bad commentary in cricket....do you remember Peter West?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Nah, that’s a transparently created personality designed to tease stale, middle aged men interested in politics and betting. I mean why on earth would a young, self proclaimed lesbian waste time posting on here.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
Who?
Lol!
He was popularly known as 'Grannie', which kind of summed him up, and also the \Beeb's approach to sports coverage generally.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
You're a football fan. More specifically, you're a Leicester fan, living in Leicester. I might respectfully suggest that is why you 'think' that.
He's decent enough, JJ, but not one of the truly great presenters. In fact I cannot think of a great soccer presenter. There are some very good ones - Pat Nevin springs to mind - but none that would approach the truly great status of, say, a Richie Benaud in cricket or Cliff Morgan in rugby.
John Arlott and Dan Maskell shouldn't be overlooked.
Terrible commentators also cannot be ignored. James Hunt was a great driver, but a terrible commentator at first. What saved him was the fact that the great Murray Walker seemed to hate him at times. You could almost hear them fighting for the microphone. The few times they disagreed were hilarious.
I certainly would not overlook Arlott or Maskell.
If you wanted an example of bad commentary in cricket....do you remember Peter West?
Speaking of Arlott, I listened to Laurie Lee's recording of Cider with Rosie a while back.
Same seductive west country burr - quite hypnotic.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
I've only done a small amount of scuba, and only inland. But I've known people who were semi-pro, and chatted to professionals. Yes, your scenario could work; but there's also a lot that could go wrong, and be detected. As an example, leaving aside the divers, you need timers. These are simple, but also complex to make reliable (and waterproof, etc). even access to suitable explosives.
The more complex you make it, the less likely it is to be relative amateurs. That does not mean it is a state actor (it might have been PMCs, companies or mercenaries), but it is far from unskilled.
I would bet oil industry divers - there’s quite a few about. They are often certified on underwater explosives as well. Bringing their own doctors sounds like the kind of thing the oil industry guys I knew would have done.
Access to explosives would be not impossible for such people. The timers would be out of a box.
All the setup would have been done on the surface. Drop the stuff down, push into position, magnets, press button.
Incidentally, my dad once hired professional divers to work on a complex job... in Derby. It was a difficult and dangerous environment, which one described as a little akin to wreck diving. In Derby.
Also incidentally, there is a big demand for divers inland, as all major bridges with piers in water, have to have the piers inspected regularly for scour. This often requires divers in the water, even if it is not deep.
I'm struggling even now to understand what "stop the boats" is really about apart from Suella Braverman putting down a marker for the next Conservative leadership election.
I'm struggling even now to understand what "stop the boats" is really about apart from Suella Braverman putting down a marker for the next Conservative leadership election.
I don't think you're struggling at all, although perhaps you underplay the urgent need to appease the nutcase right of Mogg and Dorries.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
I think people find him a charming host. That is why it gets higher views than MOTD2.
You're a football fan. More specifically, you're a Leicester fan, living in Leicester. I might respectfully suggest that is why you 'think' that.
He's decent enough, JJ, but not one of the truly great presenters. In fact I cannot think of a great soccer presenter. There are some very good ones - Pat Nevin springs to mind - but none that would approach the truly great status of, say, a Richie Benaud in cricket or Cliff Morgan in rugby.
John Arlott and Dan Maskell shouldn't be overlooked.
Terrible commentators also cannot be ignored. James Hunt was a great driver, but a terrible commentator at first. What saved him was the fact that the great Murray Walker seemed to hate him at times. You could almost hear them fighting for the microphone. The few times they disagreed were hilarious.
I certainly would not overlook Arlott or Maskell.
If you wanted an example of bad commentary in cricket....do you remember Peter West?
Speaking of Arlott, I listened to Laurie Lee's recording of Cider with Rosie a while back.
Same seductive west country burr - quite hypnotic.
Good word pictures too - just read his As I stepped out one midsummer morning last week.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
How about "I can't see who's in the lead, but it's either Oxford or Cambridge."
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
How about "I can't see who's in the lead, but it's either Oxford or Cambridge."
At the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race.
That's on a par with the famous snooker line: 'For viewers watching in black and white, he's going for the blue.'
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
I've only done a small amount of scuba, and only inland. But I've known people who were semi-pro, and chatted to professionals. Yes, your scenario could work; but there's also a lot that could go wrong, and be detected. As an example, leaving aside the divers, you need timers. These are simple, but also complex to make reliable (and waterproof, etc). even access to suitable explosives.
The more complex you make it, the less likely it is to be relative amateurs. That does not mean it is a state actor (it might have been PMCs, companies or mercenaries), but it is far from unskilled.
I would bet oil industry divers - there’s quite a few about. They are often certified on underwater explosives as well. Bringing their own doctors sounds like the kind of thing the oil industry guys I knew would have done.
Access to explosives would be not impossible for such people. The timers would be out of a box.
All the setup would have been done on the surface. Drop the stuff down, push into position, magnets, press button.
Incidentally, my dad once hired professional divers to work on a complex job... in Derby. It was a difficult and dangerous environment, which one described as a little akin to wreck diving. In Derby.
Also incidentally, there is a big demand for divers inland, as all major bridges with piers in water, have to have the piers inspected regularly for scour. This often requires divers in the water, even if it is not deep.
My dad took me to Winchester Cathedral as a kid, and he pointed that out (groundworks being his thing). It's odd (and sadly typical) that the statue in Winchester was not of him.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
How about "I can't see who's in the lead, but it's either Oxford or Cambridge."
At the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race.
That's on a par with the famous snooker line: 'For viewers watching in black and white, he's going for the blue.'
Wasn't that, 'for those watching in black and white, the yellow is just behind the blue?'
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
How about "I can't see who's in the lead, but it's either Oxford or Cambridge."
At the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race.
That's on a par with the famous snooker line: 'For viewers watching in black and white, he's going for the blue.'
Wasn't that, 'for those watching in black and white, the yellow is just behind the blue?'
Thanks. I couldn't remember the exact quote, but that was the general idea.
It was Ted Lowe, of course, and |I rather think he did it deliberately, tongue in cheek. He was however a truly great commentator.
Re Lineker. The stupidest barrack I ever heard was in the Popular Stand at Goodison. "Get that bloody Lineker off! He does absolutely f*** all all game except score!!" He's always been a bit Marmite.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
How about "I can't see who's in the lead, but it's either Oxford or Cambridge."
At the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race.
That's on a par with the famous snooker line: 'For viewers watching in black and white, he's going for the blue.'
Wasn't that, 'for those watching in black and white, the yellow is just behind the blue?'
Thanks. I couldn't remember the exact quote, but that was the general idea.
It was Ted Lowe, of course, and |I rather think he did it deliberately, tongue in cheek. He was however a truly great commentator.
It was a perfectly logical remark when you realise the blue was on its spot.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
How about "I can't see who's in the lead, but it's either Oxford or Cambridge."
At the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race.
Murray Walker, 'there's nothing wrong with the car, except it's on fire.'
And even the great Sir Peter O'Sullevan was capable of mis-steps: 'He'll win if he stays in front.'
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
How about "I can't see who's in the lead, but it's either Oxford or Cambridge."
At the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race.
"Juantorena, opening his legs and showing his class"
Interesting analysis from Tim Shipman on the times radio PMQs unpacked programme.
Re: “Stop the boats”
“In terms of politics and the opinion polls, Sunak is onto a winner, here”
Fwiw, I think we’ve reached, what might be called “the Godwin tipping point” when the nazis as our societies cultural reference for absolute evil gets deconstructed.
Perhaps that point was in 2016. I don’t know.
It’s a scary time, for sure. And I’m not sure Braverman and Sunak et al can control what they chose to unleash. Will a resentful underclass buy their good immigrant/bad immigrant binary?
As the 2019 promises of meaningful state support to improve their lot in life fail to materialise and the shiny merc on the drive, funded through a cheap pcp gets replaced with a 10 y/o Vauxhall on 9% apr, who are they gonna focus their anger on?
Khrushchev concluded, 'It is far more difficult to discuss things with you Labour leaders than with the Conservative government of this country'. If this was British socialism, Khrushchev would rather be a Tory.
If only they'd had to hand Count Binface's (or at least one he borrows) definition of communism with which to retort - We're all in it together, until we kill you.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to
give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Indeed, we established a while ago that all posters on PB are SeanT. I know I am, and you certainly are. Jessop is, as is Foxy.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters.
Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Nah, that’s a transparently created personality designed to tease stale, middle aged men interested in politics and betting. I mean why on earth would a young, self proclaimed lesbian waste time posting on here.
‘She’ is one of Sean’s most interesting alter egos.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters.
Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Nah, that’s a transparently created personality designed to tease stale, middle aged men interested in politics and betting. I mean why on earth would a young, self proclaimed lesbian waste time posting on here.
‘She’ is one of Sean’s most interesting alter egos.
Interesting that the Times reports that Sunak will implement the boat policy and use delaying tactics with any intervention by the courts which can take years to make a ruling if at all
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
But was Hill any good? Besides, Lineker's getting near that - how long has he been sucking at the BBC's teat? 30 years?
Hill was a bit marmite, but he was light years ahead of what came before. Remember Kenneth Wolstenholme?
...they think it's all over... it is now!
Yeah, but one great spontaneous line doesn't justify a whole career of plodding mediocrity.
How about "I can't see who's in the lead, but it's either Oxford or Cambridge."
At the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race.
Murray Walker, 'there's nothing wrong with the car, except it's on fire.'
And even the great Sir Peter O'Sullevan was capable of mis-steps: 'He'll win if he stays in front.'
Racing was blessed with many fine commentators but none better than Sir Peter.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters.
Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB
either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Nah, that’s a transparently created personality designed to tease stale, middle aged men interested in politics and betting. I mean why on earth would a young, self proclaimed lesbian waste time posting on here.
‘She’ is one of Sean’s most interesting alter egos.
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
They change when they decide the brand needs a makeover. How long was Sue Barker presenting A Question of Sport, for example. When re BBC decide it’s time for he carriage clock and picture of a spitfire that’s it.
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to
give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
Exactly. So it's little to do with viewing figures, until they get so low as to force matters. Otherwise the only threat is the dreaded 'refresh'.
Jimmy Hill did 38 years as a pundit. Just because new talent comes through doesn't make the old folk redundant, just as it doesn't here on PB either.
Is there new talent on PB? I thought they were all Sean T’s?
Indeed, we established a while ago that all posters on PB are SeanT. I know I am, and you certainly are. Jessop is, as is Foxy.
The rest of them? SeanT.
I'm not.
I used to be Sean T, but he transferred me over to ChatGPT a couple of months back. You'll have noticed the increase in quality and coherence of my posts?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
Countdown wasn’t adversely affected when it dumped Vorderman for Rachel Riley who came in for a considerably lower salary.
Do people tune in to MOTD for Lineker and his insight or to see the Soccer ? I suspect if you had Alex Scott or Alan Shearer, for example, in that role the viewing figures would not suffer.
Scott could probably do it - Shearer couldn't given Lineker is the anchor. He is a rare figure in terms of being a consummate broadcaster who can do the anchor's job (trickier than it looks, look at Jermaine Jenas) but also played at the top level. That's not to say is irreplaceable - no presenter is. But he would be missed - though no doubt a replacement if well chosen would eventually grow into the role. The cost of sacking him now would more be in that it would be an absolutely appalling look for the BBC to sack a presenter for disagreeing strongly with government policy, and the knock on effect is that many other talents with other options - would probably slowly walk for roles in the private sector where no such constraints exist, and the pay is higher. Already happening to some extent. Notable all three of the 'Newsagents' podcast presenters when commenting on this story said part of their reasoning behind jumping ship was that they felt deeply uncomfortable with Tory cronies appointed to BBC roles attempts to stifle criticism of the government and tilt coverage to the right under the guise of impartiality - in a way don't do with foreign affairs coverage.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I don’t dislike Lineker, but I do think he is vastly overpaid from Licence fee funds.
The reason he's the highest paid presenter on the BBC is because he's the most popular. They check that sort of thing on the BBC more than we check Party polling on here.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
"Donald Trump may indeed be a dangerous lunatic, or simply a crackpot — but the attempt to “secure” the US information environment from his supposedly malign influence has proven to be far more destructive than anything Trump actually did as President. As our brains were turned into battlefields by political operatives and government bureaucrats, using their power over private companies to manipulate and censor information in the service of what they regarded to be publicly beneficial falsehoods, it is hardly surprising that public confidence in the American press has fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded. Only 16% of American adults in a recent Gallup poll expressed “a great deal” of confidence in the information they receive from newspapers, with 11% expressing similar levels of confidence in what they see on television. Among Republicans, the number expressing confidence in newspapers is 5%. This decline in confidence has no parallel in any other Western country. Americans, it turned out, were no more susceptible to domestic information operations than Muslims were in the Middle East two decades earlier."
OT. Great feature on Fox News and the 'stolen election' on Ch4 News. Whatever anyone thinks about the BBC just look at the alternative!
It’s been quite staggering seeing a load of the internal emails from Murdoch down at Fox who clearly hate Trump, completely disagreed the election had been stolen and realise their errors.
If only Murdoch had actually trusted his gut and been an “editor” of Fox (for once Murdoch actually dictating to one of his mouthpieces would have produced a better result) then the stolen election BS would have been nipped in the bud at the time.
The defamation case will certainly be interesting. It's turned out to be a stronger case than most, but its still the case that most of the statements were from guests even if the hosts rarely if ever challenged, and its a very high bar to meet.
US lawyers (of higher caliber than the bottom-feeders who work/worked for Trump) appear to think that the Fox "News" disclosures are VERY helpful to Dominion.
Precisely on the issue of malice, which is crucial to overriding the very high bar set by the Sullivan decision. (At least that's my understanding.)
"Donald Trump may indeed be a dangerous lunatic, or simply a crackpot — but the attempt to “secure” the US information environment from his supposedly malign influence has proven to be far more destructive than anything Trump actually did as President. As our brains were turned into battlefields by political operatives and government bureaucrats, using their power over private companies to manipulate and censor information in the service of what they regarded to be publicly beneficial falsehoods, it is hardly surprising that public confidence in the American press has fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded. Only 16% of American adults in a recent Gallup poll expressed “a great deal” of confidence in the information they receive from newspapers, with 11% expressing similar levels of confidence in what they see on television. Among Republicans, the number expressing confidence in newspapers is 5%. This decline in confidence has no parallel in any other Western country. Americans, it turned out, were no more susceptible to domestic information operations than Muslims were in the Middle East two decades earlier."
A ridiculous article, that starts off appearing to have some serious points to make but spirals off into an intellectualised version of alt-right conspiracy stuff. Just be pleased that SeanT hasn’t read it yet.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Does he have to yet ?
He had t lost the case when I saw it reported. The taxman was just, rightly, going after him.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
Comments
Access to explosives would be not impossible for such people. The timers would be out of a box.
All the setup would have been done on the surface. Drop the stuff down, push into position, magnets, press button.
I checked who stood in 2019, on the off chance that Phil Hammond went for a doomed run at the leadership.
He didn't, but golly there were some mad candidates then.
Mark Harper?
Same with the long serving DJs on radio 2.
Lineker and his chums will eventually have to give way to younger players who move into the media. It will be the same in other sports too.
I detest the thought of people being paid differently for equal work, but the gender pay gap isn’t really about that. It’s a conversation about how society values or doesn’t child raising.
He also played octopush, which is *really* violent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_hockey
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
And the maddest won.
I don't know anything, and have no evidence for that, but most such stories end up being full of bovine manure.
If someone genuinely had something serious, they wouldn't reveal it so unprofessionally. The very fact they're talking in public implies there's nothing there.
A friend who owns a moderate motor yacht in Poole has a sonar setup that, for not very much, gives a picture of the bottom that is 3D and startling in clarity. You can see features the size of house bricks clearly and sharply. A pipeline would be impossible to miss with that.
We can if we like place an economic value on all sorts of things - like the conservation of rain forest or the capercaillie or corn bunting.
We don't have to undervalue women, but as a society we choose to.
I doubt if the work women do in bringing up children is even shown in GDP figures.
The fact that Saturday has more goals, more fixtures and more big fixtures that were not televised live might also be factors in the ratings.
Also incidentally, there is a big demand for divers inland, as all major bridges with piers in water, have to have the piers inspected regularly for scour. This often requires divers in the water, even if it is not deep.
He was unopposed in the final stages of the election but he was formally opposed at one stage by both John McDonnell and Michael Meacher.
I'm struggling even now to understand what "stop the boats" is really about apart from Suella Braverman putting down a marker for the next Conservative leadership election.
Oddly enough both her proposals and Starmer's response between them have the kernel of a policy. It's clear the asylum application process needs to be overhauled and it's also clear improved cross-border co-operation to tackle the people smuggling gangs would be a big help.
I'd also be looking at the black economy in the construction and food industries into which so many migrants can seemingly disappear.
The vast majority of SNP representatives at Holyrood and Westminster will have voted against Forbes then if she does produce a shock win against Yousaf with SNP members to become SNP leader and FM
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1633574730589515779?s=20
If you wanted an example of bad commentary in cricket....do you remember Peter West?
Very alcoholic game.
He was popularly known as 'Grannie', which kind of summed him up, and also the \Beeb's approach to sports coverage generally.
Same seductive west country burr - quite hypnotic.
At the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race.
It was Ted Lowe, of course, and |I rather think he did it deliberately, tongue in cheek. He was however a truly great commentator.
The stupidest barrack I ever heard was in the Popular Stand at Goodison.
"Get that bloody Lineker off! He does absolutely f*** all all game except score!!"
He's always been a bit Marmite.
It just looks silly out of context.
I believe I heard that.
One of the best still around is Steve Bunce on boxing.
https://twitter.com/richardmarcj/status/1633226502647980032?s=20
And even the great Sir Peter O'Sullevan was capable of mis-steps: 'He'll win if he stays in front.'
Re: “Stop the boats”
“In terms of politics and the opinion polls, Sunak is onto a winner, here”
Fwiw, I think we’ve reached, what might be called “the Godwin tipping point” when the nazis as our societies cultural reference for absolute evil gets deconstructed.
Perhaps that point was in 2016. I don’t know.
It’s a scary time, for sure. And I’m not sure Braverman and Sunak et al can control what they chose to unleash. Will a resentful underclass buy their good immigrant/bad immigrant binary?
As the 2019 promises of meaningful state support to improve their lot in life fail to materialise and the shiny merc on the drive, funded through a cheap pcp gets replaced with a 10 y/o Vauxhall on 9% apr, who are they gonna focus their anger on?
We live in interesting times.
If only they'd had to hand Count Binface's (or at least one he borrows) definition of communism with which to retort - We're all in it together, until we kill you.
The rest of them? SeanT.
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1633596913013653504?t=qR30KjoOCB97jrRfHcPS0g&s=19
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
I used to be Sean T, but he transferred me over to ChatGPT a couple of months back. You'll have noticed the increase in quality and coherence of my posts?
Just uploaded to YouTube - Bermondsey by-election special from 1983, presented by Alastair Burnet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WHlrMJMok8
This is your loaf would have been a winner imo
"Donald Trump may indeed be a dangerous lunatic, or simply a crackpot — but the attempt to “secure” the US information environment from his supposedly malign influence has proven to be far more destructive than anything Trump actually did as President. As our brains were turned into battlefields by political operatives and government bureaucrats, using their power over private companies to manipulate and censor information in the service of what they regarded to be publicly beneficial falsehoods, it is hardly surprising that public confidence in the American press has fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded. Only 16% of American adults in a recent Gallup poll expressed “a great deal” of confidence in the information they receive from newspapers, with 11% expressing similar levels of confidence in what they see on television. Among Republicans, the number expressing confidence in newspapers is 5%. This decline in confidence has no parallel in any other Western country. Americans, it turned out, were no more susceptible to domestic information operations than Muslims were in the Middle East two decades earlier."
https://unherd.com/2023/03/the-battle-to-control-americas-mind/
A more useful question would be:
"Do you agree or disagree with Gary Lineker that the governments new asylum policy is not dissimilar with Nazi Germany in the 1930s?"
Precisely on the issue of malice, which is crucial to overriding the very high bar set by the Sullivan decision. (At least that's my understanding.)
He had t lost the case when I saw it reported. The taxman was just, rightly, going after him.