The Telegraph is carrying a piece by Charles Moore, founder member of the ‘Save Owen Paterson’ campaign, describing Gary Lineker as ‘an arrogant player who thinks he can defy the ref.’ And nobody in the entire building will understand how absolutely batshit that looks.
That's the problem with the New Model Conservatives- both the party and the wider movement.
2019 taught them that they can vaporise anyone who disagrees with them. That means that there is nobody left to gently tug at their sleeve and say "are you sure that is entirely wise?"
And for as long as that is the case, they're going to carry on doing batshit stuff.
So the Tory Party are Cpt Mainwaring without Sgt Wilson ?
Mrs Thatcher said “every prime minister needs a Willie“. We’re all snigger over it, but we all know that what she meant was that they needed a candid friend . And there doesn’t seem to be one!
Baldwin made much the same point in a private letter to a friend in 1938 about Neville Chamberlain. 'I had him. Ramsay had me. Lloyd George had Bonar. The trouble is, Neville has nobody.'
It's interesting from that point of view to reflect that although many modern biographers talk about Chamberlain's age meaning there was much jockeying for the leadership behind the scenes from 1937-39, they are unable to identify any obvious successors.
Johnson had a similar problem because Cummings was an idiot and fired anyone who dared to question received wisdom.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of salt? Why should the views of only football fans matter?
On a football show? Because we watch football shows and derive value for money pleasure from our license fee as a result.
And for the majority who do not watch football shows (esp. on the BBC) ?
(*) Genuinely, is there a reason it's not on here, aside from it not being on the top 50 programs? And yes, I think that's TV viewing only, not online viewing.
On topic for a minute, it feels rather pointless looking at Scottish polls at the moment. Once we know who the new leader is, what their platform is, and what the fallout is of their appointment, then we have stable data to assess things with. Now? Not so much.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Not only have the right made cancel culture their own, they’re now engaging in the politics of envy.
It’s not envy at all. I admire people who are so brilliant at their jobs they earn fabulous amounts of cash. Eg someone like the footballer Messi IS clearly worth squillions of euros a year because he is so good he can win World Cups, which brings joy to an entire nation. And he can make clubs popular and profitable. You can measure it
I am however curious and a little bewildered as to how you apply this measurement to a football pundit. Would Match of the Day lose all its viewers if Lineker left? He’s just a pundit. Good and amiable but that’s it
How do they assess his worth? That’s a genuine question
I remember the Left asking the same question about Clarkson when he was cancelled. But with Clarkson there was an obvious answer. He’s a comic genius and he made Top Gear so popular it earned the BBC £50m worldwide, per annum, at one point
Lineker, to put it kindly, has not done anything like that. Yet he earns £1.5m?!
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
As an example of confirmation bias, an organisation that definitively does have the required mathematical and statistical skills, and an extremely robust, tried and tested methodology is the gold-standard British Social Attitudes Survey. It shows that Scottish independence became the choice of the plurality a long time ago, and the choice of the majority recently:
Independence 52% Devolution (the status quo) 38% Direct rule (the status quo ante) 8%
Now, ask yourself, did you see that finding published anywhere? No? You shock me!
I wonder why?
Actually, we all know why.
And we all know why PB is publishing this particular piece of sterling investigative journalism. In the service of punters. Because this blog and this investigative journalist have no agenda. No siree!
Get used to it. The SNP are spent. 8 yrs of Nicola Surgeon is enough to drive anyone to vote anything but SNP.
They'll win the next GE in Scotland at a canter. Watch.
Exactly , there are some really thick people on here who should learn not to post their ignorance re Scotland publicly.
Agreed. I don't think Stuart's going to take your advice though.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC
spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of
salt? Why should the views of only football fans
matter?
You know nothing about football, don’t watch the show and seem to have an absolutely bizarre hatred of a sport nobody is forcing you to watch.
Therefore, your views on whether MotD should employ pundits are of fairly low value.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
That's football. The Premier League is full of players on that much for a few months, some of which never get their arse off the bench.
But it’s not football. It’s football punditry which is entirely different
I am, btw, happy to be schooled as to how Lineker is worth this salary. If it can be explained then fair enough
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
Isn’t the reality with the shit in the rivers, that in order to not have shit in the rivers, requires replacing billions of miles of sewage pipes at an astronomical cost and decades of disruption?
Like, is there the democratic will to double everyone’s water bill for the next twenty years to actually fix the problem?
I suspect not.
The depressing thing is, you are probably right.
One hates to think what the English countryside and coast is going to look like in two decades time. Cos one thing is rock solid certain: the Labour Party aren’t going to solve the problem either.
for goodness sakes, this is just as much of a problem in Scotland. 47 of 89 beaches are contaminated with sewage above safe levels, at the last count.
The SNP have no clue what to do either other than to bleat (falsely) that it’s a reserved matter so they can’t do anything.
Unfortunately, it is because the solutions are possibly going to be even more unpopular than the problem.
Morning all.
On that last point it's also worth a note that monitoring proportionally is far lower in Scotland than in England.
I'm amused by the sectarian narratives built out of this. It's Privatisation !! It's Brexshit !!! It's England !!!! It's the Tories !!!!
AFAICS the issue is the same everywhere, across Europe, with a main divide perhaps between modern separated black / grey waste water and pre-modern not-separated infrastructure. Perhaps those places that had to be rebuilt more heavily after WW2, or have been built since, have an advantage (not unlike ease of insulation on houses etc).
I think the only differences I can see are extent of monitoring, and degree of media shouting.
The current EU Water.City project suggests an initial estimate of a need for annual investment in sewage systems to increase by approx €50 billion per annum. Which is the same ballpark per pop as I've seen suggested for UK. https://www.digital-water.city/
It gets even better ..no inane interviews with footballers at the end of the match... "Well you know like.. you know what I mean like.... Well like..I got the ball.like and smacked it into the net...like.. you know what I mean. ....."
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.
As said upthread a swing of SNP to SLab could see a lot of seats revert to their pre 2015 norm with SLab dominating. It would make Starmers job a lot easier.
It would and according to the analysis I posted this would happen quicker with Forbes in charge. Which is maybe a reason to prefer her from my PoV!
I do think her leadership skills highly questionable, even compared with Yousaf!
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
How is it the going rate? Do you have any evidence?
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.
Aberdeenshire Central Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfries and Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.
Perhaps, at the margins.
But it’s swings and roundabouts.
The Tory brand is so trashed in Scotland that their elected representatives don’t even mention the name of their party on literature:
TBF my Tory MP in London has also removed all mention of the party from his literature/twitter page etc.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC
spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of
salt? Why should the views of only football fans
matter?
You know nothing about football, don’t watch the show and seem to have an absolutely bizarre hatred of a sport nobody is forcing you to watch.
Therefore, your views on whether MotD should employ pundits are of fairly low value.
Every license fee payer in the land must pay around 4p per year for Gary Lineker. I'd say at that scale, everyone is entitled to a view. Gary Neville is also a tedious semi-informed wazzock, but I'm not obliged to give him money.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Not only have the right made cancel culture their own, they’re now engaging in the politics of envy.
It’s not envy at all. I admire people who are so brilliant at their jobs they earn fabulous amounts of cash. Eg someone like the footballer Messi IS clearly worth squillions of euros a year because he is so good he can win World Cups, which brings joy to an entire nation. And he can make clubs popular and profitable. You can measure it
I am however curious and a little bewildered as to how you apply this measurement to a football pundit. Would Match of the Day lose all its viewers if Lineker left? He’s just a pundit. Good and amiable but that’s it
How do they assess his worth? That’s a genuine question
I remember the Left asking the same question about Clarkson when he was cancelled. But with Clarkson there was an obvious answer. He’s a comic genius and he made Top Gear so popular it earned the BBC £50m worldwide, per annum, at one point
Lineker, to put it kindly, has not done anything like that. Yet he earns £1.5m?!
So many words, you might even convince yourself. It’s envy pure and simple. Nothing more likely to wind a right winger up is a talented lefty earning more than they do. It’s against their natural order and model of self esteem.
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
What's the rictus grin settlement here? The one that allows the BBC Brass to say "we never wanted to censor Gary's tweets in a personal capacity and are glad that we have mutually clarified the situation."
Because the realpolitik is that kicking him off the screen will create more problems than it solves.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
Sir David Attenborough claims the "astonishing scenery" of the British Isles matches anything he has seen around the world, ahead of a new show.
The 96-year-old will present Wild Isles, a five-part natural history series, partly filmed in Wiltshire.
Even if you were rgiht, you would then need to explain why a sixth episode so closely linked to the other five had to be superficially defined separately, and not broadcast at all, when it is of public interest in both senses.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC
spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of
salt? Why should the views of only football fans
matter?
You know nothing about football, don’t watch the show and seem to have an absolutely bizarre hatred of a sport nobody is forcing you to watch.
Therefore, your views on whether MotD should employ pundits are of fairly low value.
Again, so only footie fans can have a say on how much money the BBC spends on footie and its presenters? No-one else's views matter?
"seem to have an absolutely bizarre hatred of a sport "
You have to be rather odd to see my comment as a hatred of football. I don't like football, but my dislike is not particularly strong; say, it's the same level as my dislike of brutalist architecture - and even then, I can occasionally say good things about brutalism.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Sure. But how does that relate to the current issue? The current controversy has nothing to do with his financial affairs.
Also, the BBC is not his only gig. For example, he was on BT’s CL coverage until (I think) last season so his assessment was not simply down to income from the BBC.
In any event, trying to move the discussion away from the attempted censorship of the BBC onto what it pays its presenters just goes to show that you Rightists can’t argue the point. If Lineker wrote a cheque for £4.9m to HMRC tomorrow that issue remains.
Yes. His fee is utterly irrelevant to this debate. Quite weird how some on here are seeking to link it to it.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
How is it the going rate? Do you have any evidence?
I am sincerely curious
I learnt long ago is that the price of X is whatever the buyer and seller agree. So, yes, Mr L is paid the going rate for MotD presenters.
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
Greg Dyke on R4 suggests that although clearly a big mistake by the BBC, they will struggle to escape from it and it probably means the end of Linekar's broadcasting career, or at least with the BBC.
Looking ahead I suspect it will eventually do for the dodgy Chairman's as well
"Matt Hancock was never a policy maker – he was a fanatic The Lockdown Files have shown it was a complete lack of leadership that led to the unprecedented historical step of shutting down the UK By Jonathan Sumption
The 19th-century sage William Hazlitt once observed that those who love liberty love their fellow men, while those who love power love only themselves. Matt Hancock says that he has been betrayed by the leaking of his WhatsApp messages. But few people will have any sympathy for him. He glutted on power and too obviously loved himself."
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Not only have the right made cancel culture their own, they’re now engaging in the politics of envy.
It’s not envy at all. I admire people who are so brilliant at their jobs they earn fabulous amounts of cash. Eg someone like the footballer Messi IS clearly worth squillions of euros a year because he is so good he can win World Cups, which brings joy to an entire nation. And he can make clubs popular and profitable. You can measure it
I am however curious and a little bewildered as to how you apply this measurement to a football pundit. Would Match of the Day lose all its viewers if Lineker left? He’s just a pundit. Good and amiable but that’s it
How do they assess his worth? That’s a genuine question
I remember the Left asking the same question about Clarkson when he was cancelled. But with Clarkson there was an obvious answer. He’s a comic genius and he made Top Gear so popular it earned the BBC £50m worldwide, per annum, at one point
Lineker, to put it kindly, has not done anything like that. Yet he earns £1.5m?!
So many words, you might even convince yourself. It’s envy pure and simple. Nothing more likely to wind a right winger up is a talented lefty earning more than they do. It’s against their natural order and model of self esteem.
God no, it really isn’t. You misconstrue me
Eg I think Stewart Lee is one of the funniest comedians in history. Seriously. He’s absolutely left wing and I disagree with him on almost every issue (and he can also be annoyingly pious on Twitter) but who cares. He’s a comic genius
If the BBC paid him £5m a year I’d say Yep, fair enough
I just don’t get why ANY sports pundit - left right Nazi or Khmer Rouge - can be worth £1.5m a year
There must be an internal logic but just saying “he’s worth it coz that
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would
be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
I am not sure why you have lumped me in with Jessops. I have derived countless hours of pleasure from BBC commentary and summary over the years, including Match of the Day.
BBC professionals to the core, have enhanced my life over the years. Jim Laker, John Arlot, Peter Walker and Richie Benauld. Peter Allis, Henry Longhurst (wasn't he once a Conservative MP?) Harry Carpenter, Dan Maskel, Sue Barker, John McEnroe, Peter O'Sullevan, Murray Walker, Martin Brundle, Barry Gill, Barry Mason, Sid Wadell, Ted Lowe, Virgo, Steve Davis (even Icke knew the game), Motty, Barry Davis, Sam Leitch, Gary Lineker ( and although not at the BBC, Andy Gray in the Bootroom on Sky was excellent and informative). They all make up my timeline.of sublime sporting pleasure heroes. We were a rugby family but my father couldn't stand Cliff Morgan, Peter West or Bill McLaren but we liked Starmer Smith and more recently the late Eddie Butler and Jiffy.
On to MoTD, few of the commentators reach the giddy heights of Motty, Davis or ITV's Brian Moore ( I never really liked Woolstenhome, except for the 1966 World Cup Final, which is sporting history gold) and some of the summarisers are not that insightful. I am no fan of Rio Ferdinand, and although I dislike him intensely Shearer know the ins and outs of the game, much like Alan Hansen before him.
So go away, back to Upton-Villa-Boleyn Ground -Park and leave us alone, Tory MPs!
I think you have to account for turnout though and likelihood to vote as we don't have compulsory voting. However even so on the latest RedfieldWilton poll at least the SNP are down on 2019 whether accounting for turnout and even before their new leader is elected.
Yousaf certainly looks much less impressive and competent than Sturgeon was and Forbes is an anti homosexual marriage and anti abortion social conservative so neither look likely to prevent SNP decline
I suspect if you want an experienced world-class footballer, especially a World Cup golden boot winner, to anchor your football coverage you’re going to have to shell out a few quid.
If you can find one of that limited group with a track record as a broadcaster reaching audiences beyond the average football fan, you’ll probably want to keep them.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC
spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of
salt? Why should the views of only football fans
matter?
You know nothing about football, don’t watch the show and seem to have an absolutely bizarre hatred of a sport nobody is forcing you to watch.
Therefore, your views on whether MotD should employ pundits are of fairly low value.
Every license fee payer in the land must pay around 4p per year for Gary Lineker. I'd say at
If you've been waiting 20 years for PB to post some of the original musicians playing the Match of the Day and Grandatand theme tunes, your day has come, and here are some of the original musicians playing. Grandstand and Match of the Day actually come from the golden '70s era of this sort of thing, when Britain and Italy produced the best theme music.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
TBF the Guardian didn't say the episode was pulled. The BBC press release carefully didn't provide the link, so people could easily confirm that the Guardian claim was that the BBC made the decision not to include the episode in the series on political grounds. The BBC claim implausibly that the extra film/episode made by the same people on the same contact was not excluded from the series by editorial decision because somehow it was completely separate from the other five episodes.
If they had said, it was placed on iPlayer only on editorial grounds it would have been a more convincing denial.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would
be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
I am not sure why you have lumped me in with Jessops. I have derived countless hours of pleasure from BBC commentary and summary over the years, including Match of the Day.
BBC professionals to the core, have enhanced my life over the years. Jim Laker, John Arlot, Peter Walker and Richie Benauld. Peter Allis, Henry Longhurst (wasn't he once a Conservative MP?) Harry Carpenter, Dan Maskel, Sue Barker, John McEnroe, Peter O'Sullevan, Murray Walker, Martin Brundle, Barry Gill, Barry Mason, Sid Wadell, Ted Lowe, Virgo, Steve Davis (even Icke knew the game), Motty, Barry Davis, Sam Leitch, Gary Lineker ( and although not at the BBC, Andy Gray in the Bootroom on Sky was excellent and informative). They all make up my timeline.of sublime sporting pleasure heroes. We were a rugby family but my father couldn't stand Cliff Morgan, Peter West or Bill McLaren but we liked Starmer Smith and more recently the late Eddie Butler and Jiffy.
On to MoTD, few of the commentators reach the
giddy heights of Motty, Davis or ITV's Brian
Moore ( I never really liked Woolstenhome,
except for the 1966 World Cup Final, which is
sporting history gold) and some of the
summarisers are not that insightful. I am no fan
of Rio Ferdinand, and although I dislike him intensely Shearer know the ins and outs of the
game, much like Alan Hansen before him.
So go away, back to Upton-Villa-Boleyn Ground -Park and leave us alone, Tory MPs!
Sorry! Post intended for the tedious Jessop, not you!!
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yes millions of Scots just waiting to follow Forbes in opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage
It’s hard to escape the fact that BBC presenter Gary Lineker has been suspended for posting a Tweet criticising the government, while BBC presenter Alan Sugar has faced no action whatsoever for posting Tweets attacking Mick Lynch, Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan. Funnily enough, that evidence of very clear bias seems to have past the right wing wokerati by.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
How is it the going rate? Do you have any evidence?
I am sincerely curious
What knowledge does Lineker, Shearer and co have of playing the modern game though ?
Soccer has evolved dramatically since they were players.
This is why broadcasters refresh their pundits.
They can give some insight, of course, but younger players coming through will surely have more to offer ?
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?
Lineker doesn’t deny he is a tax avoider (which is of course legal; evasion is the illegal stuff). His argument is that he is ONLY a tax avoider and hasn’t crossed any line
HMRC apparently disagrees
And I repeat how is he any different from you? The hypocrisy is obvious.
You rightly claim to be a freelancer, because you are.
He claims to be a freelancer, which on the face of it he is.
If he isn't, as HMRC claim, he should be taxed as an employee.
Honestly the fact you can't see this is mind boggling.
Why don't you wait until a decision is made before accusing others of tax avoidance and sneering at them when they do exactly what you do yourself, which by the way is not only legal, but proper. We would be in a proper mess if genuine freelancers weren't able to be so. I mean the economy would completely breakdown. I had at any one time 150 clients. Would that mean I had to have 150 employers.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
Peter Allis was no shrinking violet, he also had his own golf themed chat show "A round with Allis" and as I just recalled, I even think his predecessor and mentor Henry Longhurst was also a Conservative MP. Whatever you may make of Lineker, you must see this has been an outrageous unforced misstep by both the BBC and Conservative Ministers. By claiming Lineker is being dealt with on the grounds of his impartiality it has blown a hole in the BBC's claims to be impartial.
Yesterday I was of the opinion this issue affected the political appointees of the BBC only, having slept on it, the BBC as we know it was holed below the waterline last night.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Forbes is the only one with a decent economic brain - it seems to me - who might actually govern Scotland well, and that really is the only route to eventual independence. A continued period of good governance of a prosperous Scotland giving voters the confidence to take the plunge
The previous method of endless Anglophobic grievance has run its course. Sturgeon took it as far as she could - and failed. That’s why she’s gone
She was still a nodding donkey for Sturgeon but anyone with a pulse would be better than Humza Useless. I doubt she was involved in the chicanery unlike others.
If you've been waiting 20 years for PB to post some of the original musicians playing the Match of the Day and Grandatand theme tunes, your day has come, and here are some of the original musicians playing. Grandstand and Match of the Day actually come from the golden '70s era of this sort of thing, when Britain and Italy produced the best theme music.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
How is it the going rate? Do you have any evidence?
I am sincerely curious
What knowledge does Lineker, Shearer and co have of playing the modern game though ?
Soccer has evolved dramatically since they were players.
This is why broadcasters refresh their pundits.
They can give some insight, of course, but younger players coming through will surely have more to offer ?
The primary function of MOTD is not education, it’s entertainment ratings. As is the case with all professional sports. When ITV grabbed the highlights package off the Beeb briefly in the early 2000s their Sat night offering (can’t remember its name) was shite. MOTD is watchable. The ratings suggest that people like watching Lineker et al. The assumption on here you can just show the game or put any ex-pro on the screen has been proved false time and time again.
In a different sport, immediately after his retirement, Joe Montana (the greatest ever QB before Brady) had a go at broadcasting but was, by his own admission, terrible. Micah Richards and Roy Keane on Sky are probably not the most technically gifted analysts but they’re good entertainment. That’s the point.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
Peter Allis was no shrinking violet, and as I just recalled, I even think his predecessor and mentor Henry Longhurst was also a Conservative MP. Whatever you may make of Lineker, you must see this has been an outrageous unforced misstep by both the BBC and Conservative Ministers. By claiming Lineker is being dealt with on the grounds of his impartiality it has blown a hole in the BBC's claims to be impartial.
Yesterday I was of the opinion this issue affected the political appointees of the BBC only, having slept on it, the BBC as we know it was holed below the waterline last night.
If this precipitates a wider discussion on, and the ending of, the license fee then all well and good.
In the modern broadcasting era there is no need for a license fee that funds the BBC. Just fund the non BBC element out of general taxation and let the BBC seek its own funding how it wishes.
It is possible to think Lineker is a self serving twat and, at the same time, wronged by the BBC.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
Peter Allis was no shrinking violet, he also had his own golf themed chat show "A round with Allis" and as I just recalled, I even think his predecessor and mentor Henry Longhurst was also a Conservative MP. Whatever you may make of Lineker, you must see this has been an outrageous unforced misstep by both the BBC and Conservative Ministers. By claiming Lineker is being dealt with on the grounds of his impartiality it has blown a hole in the BBC's claims to be impartial.
Yesterday I was of the opinion this issue affected the political appointees of the BBC only, having slept on it, the BBC as we know it was holed below the waterline last night.
My favourite Peter Allis commentary was during the masters a million years ago a player missed a relatively easy put and was followed by Allis calmly commenting “well stab me in the vitals” followed by a nice period of silence.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
TBF the Guardian didn't say the episode was pulled. The BBC press release carefully didn't provide the link, so people could easily confirm that the Guardian claim was that the BBC made the decision not to include the episode in the series on political grounds. The BBC claim implausibly that the extra film/episode made by the same people on the same contact was not excluded from the series by editorial decision because somehow it was completely separate from the other five episodes.
If they had said, it was placed on iPlayer only on editorial grounds it would have been a more convincing denial.
Its an absurd argument being made. Sir David is a national treasure, makes programmes that are literally one of the things the beeb uses to promote itself everywhere, and is at the stage in life where every series may be his last.
So the production company offer 6 episodes. The Beeb says "oh no, we don't want the last one. Well we do, just on iPlayer only"? Or was it only prepared to pay for 5 shows because the 6th isn't worth the money but is because we'll buy it for iPlayer?
Its preposterous. They will buy everything Sir National Treasure puts out. And they have - its going out on iPlayer. So what was it about episode 6 that spooked them? Oh yes, the political implications.
Now in retaliation PB Tories are demanding Lineker's tax affairs are investigated. Piss this Government off at your peril. One loose tweet about Suella Braverman's morality and your fortune and your liberty are put in jeopardy. Lineker's tweet is becoming more pertinent as the hours pass
On topic this poll seemed a little too good to be true at the time it came out (not so much in the headline scores which were fairly unremarkable but in the subsamples and subsidiary questions) and is massively too good to be true when you look at the underlying data as Wilfred had done.
Stuart's inability to avoid playing the man rather than the ball whenever anything suggests something rather than the inevitability of the independence of this country he chooses not to live in is often wearisome but his observations about the source of this poll and the skills, knowledge and experience of those running it are both persuasive and concerning. We seem to be slipping into an American situation where polling is partisan, unreliable and deliberately misleading. We thought we had safeguards with the BPC that would stop such nonsense but I think we now have to give serious thought as to whether or not they are doing their job.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yousaf will be the death knell for the SNP, though he is unlikely to last long. Some who declined are likely waiting to see how the court cases go and who if any of the cartel are left standing, ready to step up when Useless gets dumped.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Now in retaliation PB Tories are demanding Lineker's tax affairs are investigated. Piss this Government off at your peril. One loose tweet about Suella Braverman's morality and your fortune and your liberty are put in jeopardy. Lineker's tweet is becoming more pertinent as the hours pass
Quite. The cries of “Lock Him Up” at Tory Party rallies are only months away. The authoritarian instincts of Tories and their fellow travellers on here are chilling.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
How is it the going rate? Do you have any evidence?
I am sincerely curious
What knowledge does Lineker, Shearer and co have of playing the modern game though ?
Soccer has evolved dramatically since they were players.
This is why broadcasters refresh their pundits.
They can give some insight, of course, but younger players coming through will surely have more to offer ?
The primary function of MOTD is not education, it’s entertainment ratings. As is the case with all professional sports. When ITV grabbed the highlights package off the Beeb briefly in the early 2000s their Sat night offering (can’t remember its name) was shite. MOTD is watchable. The ratings suggest that people like watching Lineker et al. The assumption on here you can just show the game or put any ex-pro on the screen has been proved false time and time again.
In a different sport, immediately after his retirement, Joe Montana (the greatest ever QB before Brady) had a go at broadcasting but was, by his own admission, terrible. Micah Richards and Roy Keane on Sky are probably not the most technically gifted analysts but they’re good entertainment. That’s the point.
My comment was in relation to the point made upthread that Lineker is paid for his knowledge.
As for people liking watching him, rather than the show, we will see what happens with the ratings longer term if this is not resolved.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yousaf will be the death knell for the SNP, though he is unlikely to last long. Some who declined are likely waiting to see how the court cases go and who if any of the cartel are left standing, ready to step up when Useless gets dumped.
Point of order Malc, if Yousaf doesn't last long he'll surely not be the death knell for the SNP.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
Peter Allis was no shrinking violet, he also had his own golf themed chat show "A round with Allis" and as I just recalled, I even think his predecessor and mentor Henry Longhurst was also a Conservative MP. Whatever you may make of Lineker, you must see this has been an outrageous unforced misstep by both the BBC and Conservative Ministers. By claiming Lineker is being dealt with on the grounds of his impartiality it has blown a hole in the BBC's claims to be impartial.
Yesterday I was of the opinion this issue affected the political appointees of the BBC only, having slept on it, the BBC as we know it was holed below the waterline last night.
Which is probably the idea. We have the DfT explicitly wrecking the rail network, so why not have the BBC demolished as well? That way everyone can be forced to watch impartial programmes presented by Nadine Dorries instead.
And yes, explicit wrecking is the DfT policy. Transpennine Express isn't able to function. The operator is on a management contract so has to obey the DfT. Has asked them for a temporary reduction in services to cope with the shortages, and the DfT has turned them down. Which means uncontrolled cancellations every day which makes the service unusable.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
Peter Allis was no shrinking violet, he also had his own golf themed chat show "A round with Allis" and as I just recalled, I even think his predecessor and mentor Henry Longhurst was also a Conservative MP. Whatever you may make of Lineker, you must see this has been an outrageous unforced misstep by both the BBC and Conservative Ministers. By claiming Lineker is being dealt with on the grounds of his impartiality it has blown a hole in the BBC's claims to be impartial.
Yesterday I was of the opinion this issue affected the political appointees of the BBC only, having slept on it, the BBC as we know it was holed below the waterline last night.
Now in retaliation PB Tories are demanding Lineker's tax affairs are investigated. Piss this Government off at your peril. One loose tweet about Suella Braverman's morality and your fortune and your liberty are put in jeopardy. Lineker's tweet is becoming more pertinent as the hours pass
Quite. The cries of “Lock Him Up” at Tory Party rallies are only months away. The authoritarian instincts of Tories and their fellow travellers on here are chilling.
Indeed. Reading the comments from the right-wing loons who live on this blog was amusing this morning.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
TBF the Guardian didn't say the episode was pulled. The BBC press release carefully didn't provide the link, so people could easily confirm that the Guardian claim was that the BBC made the decision not to include the episode in the series on political grounds. The BBC claim implausibly that the extra film/episode made by the same people on the same contact was not excluded from the series by editorial decision because somehow it was completely separate from the other five episodes.
If they had said, it was placed on iPlayer only on editorial grounds it would have been a more convincing denial.
Its an absurd argument being made. Sir David is a national treasure, makes programmes that are literally one of the things the beeb uses to promote itself everywhere, and is at the stage in life where every series may be his last.
So the production company offer 6 episodes. The Beeb says "oh no, we don't want the last one. Well we do, just on iPlayer only"? Or was it only prepared to pay for 5 shows because the 6th isn't worth the money but is because we'll buy it for iPlayer?
Its preposterous. They will buy everything Sir National Treasure puts out. And they have - its going out on iPlayer. So what was it about episode 6 that spooked them? Oh yes, the political implications.
Plus the fact the Guardian are insistent on multiple claims of a politically motivated editorial decision being made. We can't fully verify anonymous claims, but in this cases they are corroborated by the BBC's non-denial denial.
Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.
Aberdeenshire Central Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfries and Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.
He wants the weakest link to win and by the time he crashes and burns he hopes his profile will be higher and such that he will be ready to pounce.
Now in retaliation PB Tories are demanding Lineker's tax affairs are investigated. Piss this Government off at your peril. One loose tweet about Suella Braverman's morality and your fortune and your liberty are put in jeopardy. Lineker's tweet is becoming more pertinent as the hours pass
His tax affairs are already being investigated.
As are the tax affairs of plenty of on screen talent who use tax avoidance vehicles.
It is part of a long running effort by HMRC including such high profile cases as Christa Ackroyd and Lorraine Kelly. It has been going on for years.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
He gets loads of money from hosting non UK Champions League and the 3pm games on the rest of the world broadcasts. It's not like MOTD is his only gig.
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?
Lineker doesn’t deny he is a tax avoider (which is of course legal; evasion is the illegal stuff). His argument is that he is ONLY a tax avoider and hasn’t crossed any line
HMRC apparently disagrees
And I repeat how is he any different from you? The hypocrisy is obvious.
You rightly claim to be a freelancer, because you are.
He claims to be a freelancer, which on the face of it he is.
If he isn't, as HMRC claim, he should be taxed as an employee.
Honestly the fact you can't see this is mind boggling.
Why don't you wait until a decision is made before accusing others of tax avoidance and sneering at them when they do exactly what you do yourself, which by the way is not only legal, but proper. We would be in a proper mess if genuine freelancers weren't able to be so. I mean the economy would completely breakdown. I had at any one time 150 clients. Would that mean I had to have 150 employers.
Honestly stick to stuff you know something about.
He’s avoided £5m in tax and I have paid his salary as a Briton with a tv. On that basis alone I am entitled to an opinion
You seem curiously hysterical about all this. As do others. Odd
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yousaf will be the death knell for the SNP, though he is unlikely to last long. Some who declined are likely waiting to see how the court cases go and who if any of the cartel are left standing, ready to step up when Useless gets dumped.
Point of order Malc, if Yousaf doesn't last long he'll surely not be the death knell for the SNP.
One might have thought that about Salmond, but the evidence is all to the contrary! The SNP flourished after he left!
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
Peter Allis was no shrinking violet, he also had his own golf themed chat show "A round with Allis" and as I just recalled, I even think his predecessor and mentor Henry Longhurst was also a Conservative MP. Whatever you may make of Lineker, you must see this has been an outrageous unforced misstep by both the BBC and Conservative Ministers. By claiming Lineker is being dealt with on the grounds of his impartiality it has blown a hole in the BBC's claims to be impartial.
Yesterday I was of the opinion this issue affected the political appointees of the BBC only, having slept on it, the BBC as we know it was holed below the waterline last night.
My favourite Peter Allis commentary was during the masters a million years ago a player missed a relatively easy put and was followed by Allis calmly commenting “well stab me in the vitals” followed by a nice period of silence.
Just at TTOI was not meant to be a documentary, while this episode of W1A plays out in real time let us take just a moment to reflect the awesome genius of the Tory strategists that managed to get their "final solution" to the boat crisis and "Nazis" together on the front pages...
Now in retaliation PB Tories are demanding Lineker's tax affairs are investigated. Piss this Government off at your peril. One loose tweet about Suella Braverman's morality and your fortune and your liberty are put in jeopardy. Lineker's tweet is becoming more pertinent as the hours pass
Quite. The cries of “Lock Him Up” at Tory Party rallies are only months away. The authoritarian instincts of Tories and their fellow travellers on here are chilling.
Prepare for the Two Minutes Hate.
Government stooges suspending a media figure for expressing an opinion they don't like just confirms the veracity of Linekers first tweet.
Just at TTOI was not meant to be a documentary, while this episode of W1A plays out in real time let us take just a moment to reflect the awesome genius of the Tory strategists that managed to get their "final solution" to the boat crisis and "Nazis" together on the front pages...
Especially funny since Lineker never mentioned the Nazis.
If you've been waiting 20 years for PB to post some of the original musicians playing the Match of the Day and Grandatand theme tunes, your day has come, and here are some of the original musicians playing. Grandstand and Match of the Day actually come from the golden '70s era of this sort of thing, when Britain and Italy produced the best theme music.
Keith Mansfield and Alan Hawkshaw are very hip and popular with young whippersnappers, I understand, as they also played some very modern-sounding, electronic and experimental material, like "Frontiers of Science".
As expected, the usual cybernat rampers are attempting to discredit my findings. All I read though is bluster. What is lacking from them is any attempt to look at the polling evidence, and that is telling. All of it is accessible from the hyperlink in the R&W article, the data tables from R&W are accessible at the bottom of the R&W.
So if what I have presented isn't enough for the cybernats, here's a bit more.
The previous poll from R&W, fieldwork November, had a 10% SNP lead over Labour, just as this one has. Yet, leaving aside the R&W turnout adjustment, all of the data on 2019 voters shows a very strong and further swing to Labour from the SNP since then.
That is, in the March 2023 R&W poll, of 2019 SNP voters, only 69% are sticking with the SNP, 22% have switched to Labour, 7% are DK/DV. Labour has retained 89% of its own 2019 voters and also picked up 30% of 2019 LDs and 15% of 2019 Conservatives. (These are much better for Labour than the in excess of the same figures in the November 2022 R&W poll, at that point 11% of 2019 SNP voters had switched to Labour, 80% staying with the SNP. Labour had retained 85% of its 2019 vote.)
So all the rest of the R&W data is pointing to a substantial swing from the SNP to Labour since the November poll, as people switch from what they did in 2019. Such a narrowing of the SNP lead since November is also very plausible given that Sturgeon has gone and the SNP has descended into internecine warfare. Yet both R&W polls have the same 10% poll lead.
The reason that the poll lead hasn't narrowed is solely down to a wholly implausible turnout adjustment. Only 49% of 2019 Labour voters are recorded by R&W as stating that they are "certain" to vote at the 2019 general election, compared to 73% of 2019 SNP voters, 73% of 2019 Conservatives and 71% of 2019 LDs. Line 6 of the R&W spreadsheet, check for yourself. Back in November 2022, R&W recorded 85% of 2019 Labour voters as being certain to vote, and 79% of SNP supporters.
The movement in the R&W turnout adjustment for 2019 Labour voters certain to vote is completely bonkers, falling from 85% to 49%. It is as clear as night follows day that something is wrong with the turnout adjustment.
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
Now in retaliation PB Tories are demanding Lineker's tax affairs are investigated. Piss this Government off at your peril. One loose tweet about Suella Braverman's morality and your fortune and your liberty are put in jeopardy. Lineker's tweet is becoming more pertinent as the hours pass
Quite. The cries of “Lock Him Up” at Tory Party rallies are only months away. The authoritarian instincts of Tories and their fellow travellers on here are chilling.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Mr. Punter, nothing can beat "There's nothing wrong with the car except that it's on fire."
Mr. Romford, to be fair, businesses can make bad decisions that seem inexplicable. Ratner, or, more recently, the MCU and Star Wars diluting their brands by subpar films and excessive content at the expense of quality.
Going back a bit, but Star Wars junking the expanded universe when it was bought by Disney was just nuts. A film series based on Zahn's Thrawn trilogy would've been a slam dunk box office success.
Do you remember an occasion (Monaco, I think) when one of the leading cars stopped in the tunnel shortly before the end of the race? Walker exploded with excitement saying it must be some sort of mechanical failure and ran through a few of the more likely issues before James Hunt quietly informed him 'He's run out of petrol, Murray.'
That was Monaco 1996, the race that no-one seemingly wanted to win, the top step of the podium finally being occupied by a surprised Olivier Panis, for the first and only time.
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
Isn’t the reality with the shit in the rivers, that in order to not have shit in the rivers, requires replacing billions of miles of sewage pipes at an astronomical cost and decades of disruption?
Like, is there the democratic will to double everyone’s water bill for the next twenty years to actually fix the problem?
I suspect not.
Rivers are actually a problem in England and Wales.
We pump and drain far too much shit into them, for a first world country, and far too many of them are "private" and totally inaccessible to people.
I'd say there's also a problem with lack of access for bathing/swimming, which I'd love. But the problem with that is that if you get too many feral chavs and their dogs going there that's just as bad and will introduce all sorts of nasty chemical and bodily pollution back into the rivers, as well as tonnes of litter.
Spoken like a true Tory Boy. Harry Enfield eat your heart out.
I don't see where the heck you get that from. CR's highlighted an issue (access to rivers) that is not a traditional Tory issue, and then also highlights an issue with it.
And I know you're hardly a Scottish expert, but Scotland's had issues with their access legislation:
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Is Clarkson a great example? Not sure Prime really landed the talent they thought they were getting. Hence the cancelling of his shows.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.
As said upthread a swing of SNP to SLab could see a lot of seats revert to their pre 2015 norm with SLab dominating. It would make Starmers job a lot easier.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
If he never works again he would be fine.
I suspect though that a variety of media shows will be making him offers immediately.
A bit like producing airport pulp fiction, being a good TV presenter and pundit isn't as easy as it looks.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
TBF the Guardian didn't say the episode was pulled. The BBC press release carefully didn't provide the link, so people could easily confirm that the Guardian claim was that the BBC made the decision not to include the episode in the series on political grounds. The BBC claim implausibly that the extra film/episode made by the same people on the same contact was not excluded from the series by editorial decision because somehow it was completely separate from the other five episodes.
If they had said, it was placed on iPlayer only on editorial grounds it would have been a more convincing denial.
Its an absurd argument being made. Sir David is a national treasure, makes programmes that are literally one of the things the beeb uses to promote itself everywhere, and is at the stage in life where every series may be his last.
So the production company offer 6 episodes. The Beeb says "oh no, we don't want the last one. Well we do, just on iPlayer only"? Or was it only prepared to pay for 5 shows because the 6th isn't worth the money but is because we'll buy it for iPlayer?
Its preposterous. They will buy everything Sir National Treasure puts out. And they have - its going out on iPlayer. So what was it about episode 6 that spooked them? Oh yes, the political implications.
It’s a separate production company that is making the sixth film and it is in conjunction with the national Trust and WWF.
Things that aren’t relevant in the Lineker thing: > How much he is paid > His tax affairs > Whether he or MOTD is any good > The content of his views > How much the licence fee is, and whether that’s how public service broadcasting should be funded.
What is relevant: > He’s been pulled because he has criticised government policy. Other BBC employees have also expressed views that are not impartial, but also are not critical of government specifically, and remained in their jobs. > it appears that this could be because of how the Gov has filled key posts with, essentially, political appointees.
Regardless of your views on the first lump of bullets - and there’s a respectable spectrum on all of them - it’s the latter that deserve to be looked at, and should worry us all.
Why is Lineker paid so much? Because he has contacts inside football that no non-football person could possibly get and because he understands football. Crucially, he also knows how to present a TV programme. That’s a very rare combination. You often get one or the other. It’s hard to think of who else gives you both. Whether that’s worth £1.5 million to the BBC, I don’t know. But if he does end up leaving them, he’ll match it, at least, wherever he ends up - especially on a commercial station that needs punditry to run ads against.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Yet again the pig ignorance of PB Tories shows. Not only has he other places to go, he’s there already. He did the BT CL coverage as on top of MOTD until he decided to quit the former last season. He’s also regularly been on NBC Sports Network, is on Fox Sports Eredivisie, and would be snapped up by Amazon if he left the BBC. All of the above have deeper pockets than the BBC. So the position is exactly the opposite to that you postulate. He doesn’t need the BBC.
Tories should stop talking about football. It’s embarrassing how little they know.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Comments
It's interesting from that point of view to reflect that although many modern biographers talk about Chamberlain's age meaning there was much jockeying for the leadership behind the scenes from 1937-39, they are unable to identify any obvious successors.
Johnson had a similar problem because Cummings was an idiot and fired anyone who dared to question received wisdom.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
It's odd how I cannot seem to find it on here (*) ? And if it isn't on the top 50 programs, how come the salaries are so high?
https://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/most-viewed-programmes/
(*) Genuinely, is there a reason it's not on here, aside from it not being on the top 50 programs? And yes, I think that's TV viewing only, not online viewing.
I am however curious and a little bewildered as to how you apply this measurement to a football pundit. Would Match of the Day lose all its viewers if Lineker left? He’s just a pundit. Good and amiable but that’s it
How do they assess his worth? That’s a genuine question
I remember the Left asking the same question about Clarkson when he was cancelled. But with Clarkson there was an obvious answer. He’s a comic genius and he made Top Gear so popular it earned the BBC £50m worldwide, per annum, at one point
Lineker, to put it kindly, has not done anything like that. Yet he earns £1.5m?!
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
https://twitter.com/wwf_uk/status/1634290349098057728
Therefore, your views on whether MotD should employ pundits are of fairly low value.
I am, btw, happy to be schooled as to how Lineker is worth this salary. If it can be explained then fair enough
On that last point it's also worth a note that monitoring proportionally is far lower in Scotland than in England.
I'm amused by the sectarian narratives built out of this. It's Privatisation !! It's Brexshit !!! It's England !!!! It's the Tories !!!!
AFAICS the issue is the same everywhere, across Europe, with a main divide perhaps between modern separated black / grey waste water and pre-modern not-separated infrastructure. Perhaps those places that had to be rebuilt more heavily after WW2, or have been built since, have an advantage (not unlike ease of insulation on houses etc).
I think the only differences I can see are extent of monitoring, and degree of media shouting.
The current EU Water.City project suggests an initial estimate of a need for annual investment in sewage systems to increase by approx €50 billion per annum. Which is the same ballpark per pop as I've seen suggested for UK.
https://www.digital-water.city/
I do think her leadership skills highly questionable, even compared with Yousaf!
I am sincerely curious
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-62574287
Sir David Attenborough claims the "astonishing scenery" of the British Isles matches anything he has seen around the world, ahead of a new show.
The 96-year-old will present Wild Isles, a five-part natural history series, partly filmed in Wiltshire.
Gary Neville is also a tedious semi-informed wazzock, but I'm not obliged to give him money.
Because the realpolitik is that kicking him off the screen will create more problems than it solves.
"seem to have an absolutely bizarre hatred of a sport "
You have to be rather odd to see my comment as a hatred of football. I don't like football, but my dislike is not particularly strong; say, it's the same level as my dislike of brutalist architecture - and even then, I can occasionally say good things about brutalism.
Looking ahead I suspect it will eventually do for the dodgy Chairman's as well
The Lockdown Files have shown it was a complete lack of leadership that led to the unprecedented historical step of shutting down the UK
By Jonathan Sumption
The 19th-century sage William Hazlitt once observed that those who love liberty love their fellow men, while those who love power love only themselves. Matt Hancock says that he has been betrayed by the leaking of his WhatsApp messages. But few people will have any sympathy for him. He glutted on power and too obviously loved himself."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/10/matt-hancock-never-policy-maker-fanatic/
Eg I think Stewart Lee is one of the funniest comedians in history. Seriously. He’s absolutely left wing and I disagree with him on almost every issue (and he can also be annoyingly pious on Twitter) but who cares. He’s a comic genius
If the BBC paid him £5m a year I’d say Yep, fair enough
I just don’t get why ANY sports pundit - left right Nazi or Khmer Rouge - can be worth £1.5m a year
There must be an internal logic but just saying “he’s worth it coz that
I am not sure why you have lumped me in with Jessops. I have derived countless hours of pleasure from BBC commentary and summary over the years, including Match of the Day.
BBC professionals to the core, have enhanced my life over the years. Jim Laker, John Arlot, Peter Walker and Richie Benauld. Peter Allis, Henry Longhurst (wasn't he once a Conservative MP?) Harry Carpenter, Dan Maskel, Sue Barker, John McEnroe, Peter O'Sullevan, Murray Walker, Martin Brundle, Barry Gill, Barry Mason, Sid Wadell, Ted Lowe, Virgo, Steve Davis (even Icke knew the game), Motty, Barry Davis, Sam Leitch, Gary Lineker ( and although not at the BBC, Andy Gray in the Bootroom on Sky was excellent and informative). They all make up my timeline.of sublime sporting pleasure heroes. We were a rugby family but my father couldn't stand Cliff Morgan, Peter West or Bill McLaren but we liked Starmer Smith and more recently the late Eddie Butler and Jiffy.
On to MoTD, few of the commentators reach the giddy heights of Motty, Davis or ITV's Brian Moore ( I never really liked Woolstenhome, except for the 1966 World Cup Final, which is sporting history gold) and some of the summarisers are not that insightful. I am no fan of Rio Ferdinand, and although I dislike him intensely Shearer know the ins and outs of the game, much like Alan Hansen before him.
So go away, back to Upton-Villa-Boleyn Ground -Park and leave us alone, Tory MPs!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-54119758
Match of the Day host Gary Lineker has agreed a £400,000 pay cut, the BBC has revealed as it publishes the latest list of its best-paid presenters.
Lineker was the highest-earning star with an unchanged salary of £1.75m in the 2019/20 financial year.
But he has since signed a new contract, which will see that fee cut by 23%.
Yousaf certainly looks much less impressive and competent than Sturgeon was and Forbes is an anti homosexual marriage and anti abortion social conservative so neither look likely to prevent SNP decline
If you can find one of that limited group with a track record as a broadcaster reaching audiences beyond the average football fan, you’ll probably want to keep them.
Good grief.
If they had said, it was placed on iPlayer only on editorial grounds it would have been a more convincing denial.
Sorry! Post intended for the tedious Jessop, not you!!
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64890833
Soccer has evolved dramatically since they were players.
This is why broadcasters refresh their pundits.
They can give some insight, of course, but younger players coming through will surely have more to offer ?
You rightly claim to be a freelancer, because you are.
He claims to be a freelancer, which on the face of it he is.
If he isn't, as HMRC claim, he should be taxed as an employee.
Honestly the fact you can't see this is mind boggling.
Why don't you wait until a decision is made before accusing others of tax avoidance and sneering at them when they do exactly what you do yourself, which by the way is not only legal, but proper. We would be in a proper mess if genuine freelancers weren't able to be so. I mean the economy would completely breakdown. I had at any one time 150 clients. Would that mean I had to have 150 employers.
Honestly stick to stuff you know something about.
*in real terms
Yesterday I was of the opinion this issue affected the political appointees of the BBC only, having slept on it, the BBC as we know it was holed below the waterline last night.
In a different sport, immediately after his retirement, Joe Montana (the greatest ever QB before Brady) had a go at broadcasting but was, by his own admission, terrible. Micah Richards and Roy Keane on Sky are probably not the most technically gifted analysts but they’re good entertainment. That’s the point.
In the modern broadcasting era there is no need for a license fee that funds the BBC. Just fund the non BBC element out of general taxation and let the BBC seek its own funding how it wishes.
It is possible to think Lineker is a self serving twat and, at the same time, wronged by the BBC.
So the production company offer 6 episodes. The Beeb says "oh no, we don't want the last one. Well we do, just on iPlayer only"? Or was it only prepared to pay for 5 shows because the 6th isn't worth the money but is because we'll buy it for iPlayer?
Its preposterous. They will buy everything Sir National Treasure puts out. And they have - its going out on iPlayer. So what was it about episode 6 that spooked them? Oh yes, the political implications.
Stuart's inability to avoid playing the man rather than the ball whenever anything suggests something rather than the inevitability of the independence of this country he chooses not to live in is often wearisome but his observations about the source of this poll and the skills, knowledge and experience of those running it are both persuasive and concerning. We seem to be slipping into an American situation where polling is partisan, unreliable and deliberately misleading. We thought we had safeguards with the BPC that would stop such nonsense but I think we now have to give serious thought as to whether or not they are doing their job.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
As for people liking watching him, rather than the show, we will see what happens with the ratings longer term if this is not resolved.
And yes, explicit wrecking is the DfT policy. Transpennine Express isn't able to function. The operator is on a management contract so has to obey the DfT. Has asked them for a temporary reduction in services to cope with the shortages, and the DfT has turned them down. Which means uncontrolled cancellations every day which makes the service unusable.
As are the tax affairs of plenty of on screen talent who use tax avoidance vehicles.
It is part of a long running effort by HMRC including such high profile cases as Christa Ackroyd and Lorraine Kelly. It has been going on for years.
You seem curiously hysterical about all this. As do others. Odd
https://twitter.com/prodnose/status/984472511273455617?lang=en
Government stooges suspending a media figure for expressing an opinion they don't like just confirms the veracity of Linekers first tweet.
Here's a much more riotous, funky and cheery Grandstand, played by the original musicians at Islington Town Hall a few years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rW6gpLRK5w
Keith Mansfield and Alan Hawkshaw are very hip and popular with young whippersnappers, I understand, as they also played some very modern-sounding, electronic and experimental material, like "Frontiers of Science".
As expected, the usual cybernat rampers are attempting to discredit my findings. All I read though is bluster. What is lacking from them is any attempt to look at the polling evidence, and that is telling. All of it is accessible from the hyperlink in the R&W article, the data tables from R&W are accessible at the bottom of the R&W.
So if what I have presented isn't enough for the cybernats, here's a bit more.
The previous poll from R&W, fieldwork November, had a 10% SNP lead over Labour, just as this one has. Yet, leaving aside the R&W turnout adjustment, all of the data on 2019 voters shows a very strong and further swing to Labour from the SNP since then.
That is, in the March 2023 R&W poll, of 2019 SNP voters, only 69% are sticking with the SNP, 22% have switched to Labour, 7% are DK/DV. Labour has retained 89% of its own 2019 voters and also picked up 30% of 2019 LDs and 15% of 2019 Conservatives. (These are much better for Labour than the in excess of the same figures in the November 2022 R&W poll, at that point 11% of 2019 SNP voters had switched to Labour, 80% staying with the SNP. Labour had retained 85% of its 2019 vote.)
So all the rest of the R&W data is pointing to a substantial swing from the SNP to Labour since the November poll, as people switch from what they did in 2019. Such a narrowing of the SNP lead since November is also very plausible given that Sturgeon has gone and the SNP has descended into internecine warfare. Yet both R&W polls have the same 10% poll lead.
The reason that the poll lead hasn't narrowed is solely down to a wholly implausible turnout adjustment. Only 49% of 2019 Labour voters are recorded by R&W as stating that they are "certain" to vote at the 2019 general election, compared to 73% of 2019 SNP voters, 73% of 2019 Conservatives and 71% of 2019 LDs. Line 6 of the R&W spreadsheet, check for yourself. Back in November 2022, R&W recorded 85% of 2019 Labour voters as being certain to vote, and 79% of SNP supporters.
The movement in the R&W turnout adjustment for 2019 Labour voters certain to vote is completely bonkers, falling from 85% to 49%. It is as clear as night follows day that something is wrong with the turnout adjustment.
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
Is Lineker worth a punt for them? Nah....
I suspect though that a variety of media shows will be making him offers immediately.
A bit like producing airport pulp fiction, being a good TV presenter and pundit isn't as easy as it looks.
> How much he is paid
> His tax affairs
> Whether he or MOTD is any good
> The content of his views
> How much the licence fee is, and whether that’s how public service broadcasting should be funded.
What is relevant:
> He’s been pulled because he has criticised government policy. Other BBC employees have also expressed views that are not impartial, but also are not critical of government specifically, and remained in their jobs.
> it appears that this could be because of how the Gov has filled key posts with, essentially, political appointees.
Regardless of your views on the first lump of bullets - and there’s a respectable spectrum on all of them - it’s the latter that deserve to be looked at, and should worry us all.
Tories should stop talking about football. It’s embarrassing how little they know.