Gary Lineker told to step back from presenting Match of the Day

[sungod]

5 minutes ago, roo860 said:

Exactly, get rid of Shearer, Wrighty and the rest of em including that women, get some new blood in, would be breath of fresh air.

Roy Keane as the anchor would be fun

[JonnyF]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sorry Johnny, your comment was:

 

”I said it is mainly the poor that pay his salary.”

 

I’ve questioned this ‘Mainly the poor’.

 

Now you come back with the absurdity of asking me to define poor when it was you that injected ‘the poor’ into the discussion.

 

There are a number of possibilities amongst which are these:

 

1. You fabricated the whole ‘mainly the poor’ argument and you don’t have any evidence to back up your assertion.

 

2. You are not engaging in honest good faith debate.

 

Inserting arguments about ‘the poor’ into a discussion and then asking others to define ‘ poor’ for you is utter nonsense.

 

 

 

You are the one on here constantly claiming that a significant proportion of the UK is living in poverty and using food banks.

 

Therefore (depending on the definition of poor - why is why I asked) it would follow that it is mainly poor people paying the TV licence and hence Lineker's salary.

 

I guess you were trying to get into a debate on semantics regarding my use of the word "mainly". As I said, it would depend on the definition of poor whether that was accurate or not (I believe it is but maybe we define poor differently) but seeing as that has hurt your feelings so much I am happy to use "a significant proportion" of poor people are paying it if that allows us to move beyond your usual tiring pedantry. 

 

Either way, the key point remains.

[Bkk Brian]

6 minutes ago, sungod said:

Half a million more this week without him

I know on a bizarre 20 minute show for the novelty factor.

 

'OWN GOAL' 

Match Of The Day cut to 20 minutes in bizarre show with no THEME TUNE or commentary as BBC reels from Lineker crisis

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/21681072/match-of-the-day-gary-lineker/

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, roo860 said:

Exactly, get rid of Shearer, Wrighty and the rest of em including that women, get some new blood in, would be breath of fresh air.

I agree, Wright in particular was a thug on the field which makes his current virtue signalling all the more galling. He adds little of value to the program beyond his "cheeky chappy" act. His analysis is awful.

 

Shearer's was a thug off the field. His knowledge of football was exposed when he relegated Newcastle.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alan-shearer-feared-hed-killed-9426231

 

 

Sack the lot. Get some successful ex-Managers in.

[James105]

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You need to present this contract.

 

 

Why?  I didn't mention his contract.   The BBC Charter states they need to remain impartial which is a requirement for their funding model.    One of the reasons that Gary Lineker's political tweets generates headlines is because he is the highest paid presenter of the BBC and is seen as the public face of the BBC.    Each time he makes a dimwitted political tweet then the BBC have to face questions of impartiality based on this which could affect their bottom line and future funding model.     

 

All they are asking him to do is tone down his 6th form student political views on Twitter and in return they pay him £1.3m per year to do 1 or 2 days work a week for about 8 months of the year.    That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.   

[KhaoNiaw]

3 minutes ago, James105 said:

Why?  I didn't mention his contract.   The BBC Charter states they need to remain impartial which is a requirement for their funding model.    One of the reasons that Gary Lineker's political tweets generates headlines is because he is the highest paid presenter of the BBC and is seen as the public face of the BBC.    Each time he makes a dimwitted political tweet then the BBC have to face questions of impartiality based on this which could affect their bottom line and future funding model.     

 

All they are asking him to do is tone down his 6th form student political views on Twitter and in return they pay him £1.3m per year to do 1 or 2 days work a week for about 8 months of the year.    That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.   

But Lineker is a freelancer and was commenting on his own social media account. He's a sports presenter and not responsible for political content on the BBC. So the BBC's own guidelines suggest he hasn't done anything wrong. Does anyone actually believe that what he tweets out represent anything other than his own personal views?
Anyway, the question would be why pick on Lineker when there are so many other examples of other senior BBC presenters doing exactly the same thing. And we all know that there would have been no issue at all if he had tweeted political comments that were in support of government policy.

[placeholder]

55 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Another strawman.

 

I said it is mainly the poor that pay his salary.

 

Do try to keep up.

Really, it's mainly the poor who pay for licenses? You have any facts to support that?

Apparently you need repeat reminding of what the landing page of the World Forum says:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

 

What's more, Lineker's pay was 1.35 million pounds. Total BBC expenditures in 2022 were almost 3 billion pounds. A full BBC license is 159 pounds per annum. So, those pensioners' contribution to Lineker would come to 0.7 pence per annum. And, of course, many pensioners pay reduced or no fees. So they would contribute an even more exiguous amount.  And this is a household fee. So if 2 or more are contributing to the cost, it would come to at most half of 0.7 pence per annum. Shocking!

You've got nothing.

 

[placeholder]

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Define poor.

You made the claim. It's incumbent upon you to back it up.  Once again, a reminder:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

[Will B Good]

5 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

But Lineker is a freelancer and was commenting on his own social media account. He's a sports presenter and not responsible for political content on the BBC. So the BBC's own guidelines suggest he hasn't done anything wrong. Does anyone actually believe that what he tweets out represent anything other than his own personal views?
Anyway, the question would be why pick on Lineker when there are so many other examples of other senior BBC presenters doing exactly the same thing. And we all know that there would have been no issue at all if he had tweeted political comments that were in support of government policy.

Prime example, Alan Sugar!!!

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really, it's mainly the poor who pay for licenses? You have any facts to support that?

Apparently you need repeat reminding of what the landing page of the World Forum says:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

 

What's more, Lineker's pay was 1.35 million pounds. Total BBC expenditures in 2022 were almost 3 billion pounds. A full BBC license is 159 pounds per annum. So, those pensioners' contribution to Lineker would come to 0.7 pence per annum. And, of course, many pensioners pay reduced or no fees. So they would contribute an even more exiguous amount.  And this is a household fee. So if 2 or more are contributing to the cost, it would come to at most half of 0.7 pence per annum. Shocking!

You've got nothing.

 

As I already explained to Chomper, it depends how you define poor. There is a massive cost of living crisis in the UK right now if you weren't aware. People using food banks at record levels, people who cannot heat their homes. Consumer debt spiralling.

 

So yes many, many UK TV licence payers are poor. 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You made the claim. It's incumbent upon you to back it up.  Once again, a reminder:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

I define poor as anyone earning below 50,000 pounds per annum.

 

The average salary is around 38,000. 

 

Here are you stats.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/#:~:text=The median annual earnings in,pounds in the North East.

 

[James105]

4 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

But Lineker is a freelancer and was commenting on his own social media account. He's a sports presenter and not responsible for political content on the BBC. So the BBC's own guidelines suggest he hasn't done anything wrong. Does anyone actually believe that what he tweets out represent anything other than his own personal views?
Anyway, the question would be why pick on Lineker when there are so many other examples of other senior BBC presenters doing exactly the same thing.

I explained this already.  Lineker is the highest paid presenter at the BBC and regardless of whether he is freelance or not for tax avoidance purposes, the perception from the public is that he is the face of the BBC and is associated with the BBC.    This is what the head of BBC said back in 2020:

 

“If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC,” he said on Thursday in his first speech to staff.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-bbc-idUSKBN25U2CE

 

The BBC funding model requires impartiality.   If they let Lineker continue to make dimwitted political tweets then this funding model will be at risk as other BBC staff will believe they can do the same regardless of what their contract states or what their boss has asked of them.    

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You made the claim. It's incumbent upon you to back it up.  Once again, a reminder:

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

Since we are doing reminders on forum rules.

 

 

 

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

As I already explained to Chomper, it depends how you define poor. There is a massive cost of living crisis in the UK right now if you weren't aware. People using food banks at record levels, people who cannot heat their homes. Consumer debt spiralling.

 

So yes many, many UK TV licence payers are poor. 

Those using food banks are just too lazy to cook.....30p for a full meal.

 

Cannot heat their homes because they spend their money on drugs or are too stupid to budget.

 

Consumer debt spiraling out of control because the poor waste their benefit money on nights out, fags, beer and vodka shots.

 

I'll make a Tory yet.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

As I already explained to Chomper, it depends how you define poor. There is a massive cost of living crisis in the UK right now if you weren't aware. People using food banks at record levels, people who cannot heat their homes. Consumer debt spiralling.

 

So yes many, many UK TV licence payers are poor. 

You originally claimed most of Lineker's salary was paid for by the poor, not by  "many, many" whatever that means.

In addition, you called on Chomper Higgott to define poor. Apparently, it's only incumbent upon others to back up what they claim but not yourself.

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

 

 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

You originally claimed most of Lineker's salary was paid for by the poor, not by  "many, many" whatever that means.

In addition, you called on Chomper Higgott to define poor. Apparently, it's only incumbent upon others to back up what they claim but not yourself.

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source."

 

 

I've already defined poor.

 

Feel free to disagree with my definition.

[sungod]

29 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I know on a bizarre 20 minute show for the novelty factor.

 

'OWN GOAL' 

Match Of The Day cut to 20 minutes in bizarre show with no THEME TUNE or commentary as BBC reels from Lineker crisis

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/21681072/match-of-the-day-gary-lineker/

Depends what you read, others thought it better with just the football action.

 

As I said, half a million more viewers!

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Cannot heat their homes because they spend their money on drugs or are too stupid to budget.

Or funding Lineker's 5 litre Benz.

[worgeordie]

They are paying him far too much , get rid of him ,plenty

more ex footballers around who could do the job. 

 

regards worgeordie

[roo860]

40 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Here is the Italian version of Gary Lineker

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/10906300/floriana-messina-gary-lineker-presenter/

Bella!!!!!! Now ya cooking on gas!????????

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

I've already defined poor.

 

Feel free to disagree with my definition.

 

9 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I define poor as anyone earning below 50,000 pounds per annum.

 

The average salary is around 38,000. 

 

Here are you stats.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/#:~:text=The median annual earnings in,pounds in the North East.

 

This is laughable. Why stop at 50,000?. Why not 100,000? You don't get to be an authority of one. An honest link would show what official figures judge to be the income ceiling for the poor.  Or even a link to what recognized economic authorities judge that to be. Not the judgement of an anonymous member on aseannow.com.

[roo860]

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

I explained this already.  Lineker is the highest paid presenter at the BBC and regardless of whether he is freelance or not for tax avoidance purposes, the perception from the public is that he is the face of the BBC and is associated with the BBC.    This is what the head of BBC said back in 2020:

 

“If you want to be an opinionated columnist or a partisan campaigner on social media then that is a valid choice, but you should not be working at the BBC,” he said on Thursday in his first speech to staff.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-bbc-idUSKBN25U2CE

 

The BBC funding model requires impartiality.   If they let Lineker continue to make dimwitted political tweets then this funding model will be at risk as other BBC staff will believe they can do the same regardless of what their contract states or what their boss has asked of them.    

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, sungod said:

Depends what you read, others thought it better with just the football action.

 

As I said, half a million more viewers!

Well those who thought 20 mins is better than the normal 80 mins, good luck to them. It'll be back to normal soon....lol. 

 

So what do you read to say people preferred it that way with the 20 min format?

[vinny41]

34 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I know on a bizarre 20 minute show for the novelty factor.

 

'OWN GOAL' 

Match Of The Day cut to 20 minutes in bizarre show with no THEME TUNE or commentary as BBC reels from Lineker crisis

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/21681072/match-of-the-day-gary-lineker/

When Only Fools and Horses and Dad's Army were 1st shown both received lukewarm feedback

If the BBC run MOTD without presenters for 6 months then we will know if the increased viewings figures were a novelty factor or that viewers prefer a program without the waffle

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

When Only Fools and Horses and Dad's Army were 1st shown both received lukewarm feedback

If the BBC run MOTD without presenters for 6 months then we will know if the increased viewings figures were a novelty factor or that viewers prefer a program without the waffle

Thats an enormous if...lol

[vinny41]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Thats an enormous if...lol

A bit like your perception that the increase viewing numbers were due to novelty factor no evidence to backup that claim

[JonnyF]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

This is laughable. Why stop at 50,000?. Why not 100,000? You don't get to be an authority of one. An honest link would show what official figures judge to be the income ceiling for the poor.  Or even a link to what recognized economic authorities judge that to be. Not the judgement of an anonymous member on aseannow.com.

It's my opinion on what constitutes "poor".   

 

I believe we are still allowed opinions on here? Or have you banned that? ???? If so, please provide a link to forum rules showing opinions are not allowed on the forum. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

A bit like your perception that the increase viewing numbers were due to novelty factor no evidence to backup that claim

I don't have to provide evidence on an opinion. Besides how would you propose that a show that provides highlights and commentary on a number of premiership matches does that with no commentators? How would they even break up the segments. Do you really think that they will risk  40 million people, who watch at least part of MOTD’s output each season to try that experiment? Do you get it now? that's a big if

[placeholder]

Just now, JonnyF said:

It's my opinion on what constitutes "poor".   

 

I believe we are still allowed opinions on here? Or have you banned that? ???? If so, please provide a link to forum rules showing opinions are not allowed on the forum. 

Because if everyone was allowed to make up their own definitions then rational disagreement would be impossible. 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Because if everyone was allowed to make up their own definitions then rational disagreement would be impossible. 

You asked me to define it. I defined it.

 

You are free to disagree with my definition. Just as I am free to disagree with yours.

 

Isn't diversity of opinion wonderful!!!