Another MOTD moan! (Sorry)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
ncfcwonky

ncfcwonky

Active Member
Jan 30, 2011
3,465
18
38
Naaaarfolk
Apologies for this rant in advance!

I have just been thinking about MOTD's coverage following on from another thread. Although it is better than the crap ITV come up with!

It is said that Hansen is on £40,000 per appearance and Shearer is on £10,000. How the heck can this be justified? All they do is, sort of, analyse the first two games in detail, which, the majority of the time, involve Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea. Then they talk about the other games without proper analysis. As has been said about Norwich it's limited to - 'They've done well this season haven't they?' with a response of 'yes.' Also Swansea get is 'there were 22 passes leading up to that goal along with a counter going from 1-22 while the goal is replayed.

I am also always yelling at the TV when they discuss a penalty decision and they say 'he has every right to go down' or 'it was a stonewall penalty' when it clearly wasn't.

Why on earth these 'pundits' are being paid so much talk rubbish is beyond me. They may well watch the game themselves but they must be asleep half the time. No doubt people are also hired to analyse the games for the pundits.

I'm a student and I pay the license fee for my room at uni, specifically so I can watch my team on a Saturday night. £145 is a lot for a student! There are so many people who work harder who earn far less than these idiots on MOTD. The BBC is making cuts because of limited resources. This problem could be partially solved by cutting each pundit's fee by at least 90%, which would be far more justifiable, and not wasting £20mill on a pointless show like The Voice.

Or at least get rid of Hansen, Shearer and Lawrenson and use Dixon and Rosenior more!

Just looking at the 'Ability to Adapt' all posters on there have probably done analysis equivalent to 100 hours worth of MOTD.
 
Don't think you will find many who disagree with you, sadly the coverage is pretty dire especially considering the presenters salaries.
<cheers>
 
Last weeks was a good example of favouring bigger teams. Spurs/Chelsea was on last after a pretty boring 0-0 yet that match got more air time and more analysis than Norwich/Wolves and Swansea/Everton.

Why?

Because the BBC are only interested in the teams that they think people are interested in. The fact is there are more people who don't support the big six than do. That being said it'd still be more bearable to listen to them constantly going on about those teams if the presenters and experts were better.
 
How about they give more time to games that WERE actually more interesting and analyse the smaller teams.

If a pundit is earning as much as £40,000 per show, or even £10,000, then they should put more effort in and learn about the smaller teams.
 
What I like about Match of the day is the fact that every match gets shown and I get to see the highlights. I also like the theme tune.

What I don't like is everything in between the games. This seems to be a prevalent opinion which makes you wonder if the BBC have considered alternative formats.

1. Just showing the highlights with the time saved from "analysis" going in to more time on every game.
2. Having more in depth and probing interviews with the managers about what has happened.
3. Having guest presenters and pundits a la Have I got news for you
4. Having a salaryometer where viewers judge the quality of the punditary and send in how much they think the presenters should get paid.
5. Having a wall with freshly painted emulsion slowly becoming less wet on between the games (would certainly improve my interest levels!)
 
All they need is someone to introduce each game. Too much time is wasted on all this 'expert' analysis. If I want to hear a load of old rubbish, I'll talk to the missus.
 
Why not get rid of the tv and just watch the iplayer. So long as you don't watch the program live, you don't need a licence.
 
What bugs me is how little they seem to know about the world outside the Big Six. If I was paid £40,000 a week to appear on TV for a few minutes, I would see it as my job to know football inside out and at all levels - who was top of Division Two, who was the form team in the Conference and who was currently leading the Hungarian league. These lazy b***ards look like they have sat on their sofas all week eating Pringles.

Rant over. :smiley:
 
Ipswich had the biggest first season success following their 1999/2000 Championship play off win, finishing 5th the following season and achieving UEFA Cup qualification. During the close season they purchased a number of bigger name players, losing some of the cohesion and togetherness that had taken them so far. Big players, such as Marcus Stewart failed to hit the heights of their previous season. With a run of one win in eighteen games, relegation followed come May despite an upturn in fortunes.



Not THE marcus Stewart surely? <whistle>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back