They seem to have got themselves into a bit of a pickle. The daft racist cunts.

Think we are mixing up being qualified with entertaining here.

 

1 minute ago, Cheese said:

Absolutely I am. I'm in no position to judge their qualifications. Do you have evidence to suggest they're "under-qualified"?

Why do I need to start producing “evidence” to anyone? And where did I say they were under qualified. 
 

As a parting comment on this I watched a 6 nations game between France and Italy last year. All 3 pundits were female rugby players. None of them even knew who the players they were analysing as they kept getting them mixed up and looking to others for help and clearly the production team in their ears. One even got some basics of the laws of the game wrong and was corrected by the presenter (politely).  If that was the best people for the job then I would say that all those ex International French and Italian male players who had done the job previously were under qualified In your opinion as they didn’t get the Gig.

 

I look forward to your evidence in due course. 

3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Why do I need to start producing “evidence” to anyone? And where did I say they were under qualified. 
 

As a parting comment on this I watched a 6 nations game between France and Italy last year. All 3 pundits were female rugby players. None of them even knew who the players they were analysing as they kept getting them mixed up and looking to others for help and clearly the production team in their ears. One even got some basics of the laws of the game wrong and was corrected by the presenter (politely).  If that was the best people for the job then I would say that all those ex International French and Italian male players who had done the job previously were under qualified In your opinion as they didn’t get the Gig.

 

I look forward to your evidence in due course. 

You suggested that some pundits are under-qualified, and - in the context of this discussion - they are only in those jobs to tick certain boxes. i.e They only got the job because they're female/black. Do you have any evidence to back this up? Unless you meant something else?

4 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

Evidence works one way.... come on fella get with the programme 😉

I haven't made any claims that require evidence. 🤷‍♂️ 

18 minutes ago, Rudy said:

I genuinely believe Sky have Clinton Morrison on the panel because he’s black. 
Because it can’t be for this intellect, wit, deliver or analysis.

Hes fuckin wank. But he is black. 

                     What size chest are them strides?

I know it's a waistcoat, but it looks funny.

Just now, Francis Fogarty said:

                     What size chest are them strides?

I know it's a waistcoat, but it looks funny.

"He's done ever so well"

Whatever the criteria is, Micah fucking Richards definitely has pictures of Rupert Murdoch giving a horse a blow job, because in no way is he any good at punditry.

8 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

You have and you always do.

What claim have I made?

4 minutes ago, Cheese said:

You suggested that some pundits are under-qualified, and - in the context of this discussion - they are only in those jobs to tick certain boxes. i.e They only got the job because they're female/black. Do you have any evidence to back this up? Unless you meant something else?

Can you point me to where I’ve said they were under qualified please? Do you have evidence of me saying this? 
 

2 of my ex colleagues went for a job in the division I now work within. Both ably qualified for the job IMO. One got it one didn’t. That doesn’t mean one was under qualified does it? Just means there was somebody better qualified or suited to that particular role. Is it that difficult to understand? As an aside the person who got the job was a black female. The one who didn’t a white male funnily , in the context of this discussion. The right person got the job IMO out of the two.  But again the one who didn’t get the job was suitably qualified he just came up against a better candidate for that role. 
I don’t believe the people in certain roles on tv are the best candidates. So why are they there as I would say you should always employ the best person for a role irrespective of race ,religion or gender

think I’ve said before the company my mrs works for have gender and race quotas. And a software package that actively filters out applications for certain roles from white males. This is a fact. Do you think that is acceptable cheese?

6 minutes ago, Spider said:

Whatever the criteria is, Micah fucking Richards definitely has pictures of Rupert Murdoch giving a horse a blow job, because in no way is he any good at punditry.

Plenty of pundits are annoying. Interesting that it's only ever black/female pundits that are pointed out as being "box ticks"....

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by Cheese

Le Tissier was a box tick because he’s a fucking mentalist

Just now, Cheese said:

Plenty of pundits are annoying. Interesting that it's only ever black pundits that are pointed as being "box ticks"....

It’s not or did you not read my post? “Three female pundits”

2 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Can you point me to where I’ve said they were under qualified please? Do you have evidence of me saying this? 

Yes:

31 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Cheese. Come on now. So you are honestly hand on heart saying that some of the pundits on the various sporting programmes currently are there as they are the best qualified person who is available and nothing else is influencing the decisions? 

What else could you possibly be suggesting?

5 minutes ago, Spider said:

Whatever the criteria is, Micah fucking Richards definitely has pictures of Rupert Murdoch giving a horse a blow job, because in no way is he any good at punditry.

Hes ace though. 

Just now, Cheese said:

Yes:

What else could you possibly be suggesting?

Does that say under qualified? If it does I need to get some readers and can only apologize for my lack of eyesight. Or you are taking shite, again. 

1 minute ago, Escobarp said:

Does that say under qualified? If it does I need to get some readers and can only apologize for my lack of eyesight. Or you are taking shite, again. 

So what point were you trying to make? If the people you hinted at are qualified to do the job, what's your problem?

Just now, Cheese said:

So what point were you trying to make? If the people you hinted at are qualified to do the job, what's your problem?

I don’t have a problem. Other than someone saying I’ve said something when I clearly haven’t as it suits their agenda 

35 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

He's got a little better over time, he's likeable, really nice chap, but to put it politely he isn't media savvy. .... get rid. 

He was arguing with Merse and sounded like he was auditioning for Top Boy

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

Can you give examples of great pundits who've been snubbed in favour of poor ones in order to "tick boxes"? What is your dream team of pundits?

Nope. I couldn't prove any of it and I'm not going to waste time trying. We know that companies will have equality and diversity targets, which isn't a bad thing, as long as they are still employing people who are the most equipped for the job. 

I don't even know if Aluko is or isn't good enough because she wasn't given the opportunity to say much. Her commentary is excellent imo. 

I guess you are always going to get a minority of bigots who won't give anyone the time of day because they've already made their minds up. 

My "dream team"  would be Phill Neville, Gary Neville and a fully armed Alec Baldwin sat opposite. How about you Cheese?

 

9 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

If you can find me a female version of Souness, Roy Keane, Carragher, Redknapp etc al....

 

 

There fucking isn't any, let's stick with the chaps who know best 😁

 

Should be the best person for the job, just so happens that funnily enough in the mens games the best pundits are ex pros of the mens game. 
Alex Scott is good but she wouldn’t get the nod at the top table and that’s not because she’s a woman. There are just better people for the job. 

Just now, Mr Grey said:

Tbf, he is in awe of Merson, but in a good way, he respected him because he's been with Sky a lot longer, Clinton is a really likeable guy and his media skills have greatly improved, I think Sky have bigger problems than him,  women's football and women pundits for one, be interesting to see the viewing figures for ladies football, I reckon the figures don't reach 1k, it that fucking bad.

But if they dont show it the wokes will be lighting candies all over the place 

40 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

You have and you always do.

Always someone else's job to provide evidence. It's the law.

6 minutes ago, Mr Grey said:

So we are all bigots because some of us think that the better pundits are blokes 🤔

nope. Not accusing anyone of being on a bigot on here. Not yet 😉

I agree that in the case of punditry the most qualified pundits are blokes who've played at that level. As said in my previous post.

Just pointing out that there are still some elements of society that will judge a person based on their gender/colour before they've even given them a chance. 

Edited November 7, 20214 yr by London Wanderer

23 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

I don’t have a problem. Other than someone saying I’ve said something when I clearly haven’t as it suits their agenda 

So what point were you trying to make when you posted:

Quote

So you are honestly hand on heart saying that some of the pundits on the various sporting programmes currently are there as they are the best qualified person who is available and nothing else is influencing the decisions? 

To me, that reads as "Some pundits are unqualified and only got the job because of their sex/race". Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

Just now, Cheese said:

So what point were you trying to make when you posted:

To me, that reads as "Some pundits are unqualified and only got the job because of their sex/race". Maybe I'm misunderstanding you?

Where does it say under qualified which is what you state I said?