Jump to content

BBC again


Jim Panzee

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Another Robbo said:

They had a picture of Tynecastle up yesterday with a caption saying the match of the day was at Tannadice. Also noticed this in the match report 🙄

Screenshot_20211003-091012_BBC News.jpg

I noticed that earlier. Think they are referring to Craig Gordon as a fellow Scotland keeper but badly written. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • part_time_jambo

    11

  • Riccarton3

    7

  • Wee Mikey

    6

  • Jim Panzee

    5

Up until this week, they still had the league sponsor on the table as the Ladbrokes Premier League. 

 

They totally don't give a single shit about the game up here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both on-line and in Chic's radio bulletins the BBC repeatedly inform us that if Hibs hold on they will join Hearts at the top of the table but if they score again they will occupy top spot alone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sirwalter said:

Both on-line and in Chic's radio bulletins the BBC repeatedly inform us that if Hibs hold on they will join Hearts at the top of the table but if they score again they will occupy top spot alone!

They must be at it now, surely. Superb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

part_time_jambo
46 minutes ago, sirwalter said:

Both on-line and in Chic's radio bulletins the BBC repeatedly inform us that if Hibs hold on they will join Hearts at the top of the table but if they score again they will occupy top spot alone!

Given that it is during the Hibs game, I can't see anything wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, part_time_jambo said:

Given that it is during the Hibs game, I can't see anything wrong with that.

Yes, but it's the slant that they (in this case Chic) put on it. It's kin of transparent, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, sirwalter said:

Both on-line and in Chic's radio bulletins the BBC repeatedly inform us that if Hibs hold on they will join Hearts at the top of the table but if they score again they will occupy top spot alone!

oh what a shame they could not hold on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Given that it is during the Hibs game, I can't see anything wrong with that.

You don't perceive a certain inconsistency there? Either statement can be interpreted as correct but one doesn't expect to find both contained within a single observation. Careless at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

part_time_jambo
37 minutes ago, sirwalter said:

You don't perceive a certain inconsistency there? Either statement can be interpreted as correct but one doesn't expect to find both contained within a single observation. Careless at best. 

No, 1 point they are level with us, 3 points they are above us. Simple arithmetic and an accurate statement of fact.

 

Too many people looking for conspiracies when there are none (in this case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

No, 1 point they are level with us, 3 points they are above us. Simple arithmetic and an accurate statement of fact.

 

Too many people looking for conspiracies when there are none (in this case).

Didn't they need to win by 2 to leapfrog Hearts? Hearts GD at time 9, theirs 8 after goal at Ibrox. Not joining Hearts with an inferior GD

Edited by Riccarton3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

part_time_jambo

Ok, rewind. Apologies for my incorrect assumption that they were 1 point behind us. The Chic statement must have been made when they were winning, in which case we were level on points. Life is too short for me to go back and work out the permutations for both teams at that time, but assuming Chic's "simple arithmetic" was correct, then I guess a 1 goal win would have had us level level on GD, and a 2 goal win would have them above us on GD.

Anyway, it's all academic. They're sh!!!, they lost, we're above them, happy days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Didn't they need to win by 2 to leapfrog Hearts? Hearts GD at time 9, theirs 8 after goal at Ibrox. Not joining Hearts with an inferior GD

This was mentioned several times

Think I'm reading the Celtic View here 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neverforgetfiveone
9 hours ago, assessor said:

Listened to last 40 mins or so of Sportsound on radio, total avoidance of talking about Hearts going top, 

A 5 min interview with Craig Gordon near end of programme briefly mentioned the win and us going top, next 4 and a half was all questions about up coming Scotland games. 

They all really don't like Hearts at the BBC

Just let them get on with it… we just need to keep doing the business. Best to stay out of the limelight, under the radar… **** the Beeb and the press… We are flying and we know it! That’s what counts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, part_time_jambo said:

Ok, rewind. Apologies for my incorrect assumption that they were 1 point behind us. The Chic statement must have been made when they were winning, in which case we were level on points. Life is too short for me to go back and work out the permutations for both teams at that time, but assuming Chic's "simple arithmetic" was correct, then I guess a 1 goal win would have had us level level on GD, and a 2 goal win would have them above us on GD.

Anyway, it's all academic. They're sh!!!, they lost, we're above them, happy days.

A two goal win would have taken em top on goals scored. One goal win not enough to join Hearts at the top.  Agree with last sentence sentiments.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, part_time_jambo said:

No, 1 point they are level with us, 3 points they are above us. Simple arithmetic and an accurate statement of fact.

 

Too many people looking for conspiracies when there are none (in this case).

Who mentioned conspiracies? I'm talking sloppy journalism which fails to give Hearts the full credit they deserve. Clearly you also haven't mastered how goal difference or simple arithmetic or both work but at least you aren't being paid to get it right - I assume. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

part_time_jambo
1 hour ago, sirwalter said:

Who mentioned conspiracies? I'm talking sloppy journalism which fails to give Hearts the full credit they deserve. Clearly you also haven't mastered how goal difference or simple arithmetic or both work but at least you aren't being paid to get it right - I assume. 

At  the time of posting I hadn't even mastered how many points each team had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, db211833 said:

Nonsense,  they talked about us at length after full time. Full of praise for the way we are playing.  

Every time I tune in they're bigging us up. Wish we'd stop all this no one likes us pish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, part_time_jambo said:

At  the time of posting I hadn't even mastered how many points each team had.

Fair enough. Admittedly I had given it a lot of thought concluding that my preferred outcome was Hearts and Hibs both to win but our boys by a greater margin. It very nearly came to pass but the actual outcome was more than acceptable. Ryan Porteous appears not to be the Easter Road messiah: he's just a very silly boy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...