Mica Richards

[I P Knightley]

1 hour ago, PortyBeach said:

Does anyone on here actually try to comprehend what’s written?

Yes, I do think it would be sad if Richards is being given the role simply because it fills some quota. 
Don’t you agree?

I couldn't possibly agree with someone saying that a black person doesn't deserve a job.

 

When the feedback to your post is so one-sided and if you feel it is unjustified, then maybe instead of blaming the reader, you should think harder about what you wrote.

 

You brought up Richards' employment as a tick-box exercise, suggesting that he has the job only because he's filling a quota. It's most likely that you mean he's only got the job because he's black.

 

You also said "sadly", which is a indication that you don't think he deserves to be given the job.

 

Link the two together and what you've written is that he doesn't deserve the job because he's black and that, my friend, is a little bit racist.

[I P Knightley]

Oh, and in answer to the OP...

 

What does any pundit bring to a TV presentation about a game? Some insight from when they played and what might go through a professional player's mind in different situations; some tactical analysis which most of us can see from our armchairs and, beyond that, hopefully some 'character' with which the viewers can engage.

 

Personally, I haven't come across that I fully take to and am quite happy to have the volume down so Micah Richards is no better nor worse than any of the others, really.

[Sherbet]

The best person for any job should be the best qualified  irrespective of colour,sex or religion 

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

Box to box tackling/ticking Irishman..

[weegie jambo]

14 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

I couldn't possibly agree with someone saying that a black person doesn't deserve a job.

 

When the feedback to your post is so one-sided and if you feel it is unjustified, then maybe instead of blaming the reader, you should think harder about what you wrote.

 

You brought up Richards' employment as a tick-box exercise, suggesting that he has the job only because he's filling a quota. It's most likely that you mean he's only got the job because he's black.

 

You also said "sadly", which is a indication that you don't think he deserves to be given the job.

 

Link the two together and what you've written is that he doesn't deserve the job because he's black and that, my friend, is a little bit racist.

 

10 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

Oh, and in answer to the OP...

 

What does any pundit bring to a TV presentation about a game? Some insight from when they played and what might go through a professional player's mind in different situations; some tactical analysis which most of us can see from our armchairs and, beyond that, hopefully some 'character' with which the viewers can engage.

 

Personally, I haven't come across that I fully take to and am quite happy to have the volume down so Micah Richards is no better nor worse than any of the others, really.

Well said Sir, there we have the summary to end this sad debate. I can't believe the amount of racists on this thread. Put it another way should we get rid of Beni, Simms or Gino if it's just a "box ticking exercise. (sorry I'm embarrassed even writing that analogy). MR seems a good pundit, better than the usual monosyllabic old boys network both north & south of the border.

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

"Sadly, it might have something to do with..."

 

Aye, you're alright.

Correct. That time would be around 100 years ago.

 

 

 

'Kin hell. What happened yesterday that brought out the Klan?

Not one person would say a shite like this  to him. He's built like a brick outhouse.  

 

He comes across as a good lad. 

[I P Knightley]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Not one person would say a shite like this  to him. He's built like a brick outhouse.  

 

He comes across as a good lad. 

He certainly fills out his shirt.

 

So do I, of course, but in a very different shape.

[stevie1874]

4 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Nothing in his punditry style is similar to Micah Richards though is it? 

Never said it was. I’ve mentioned in earlier post I like Micah Richards but said Clinton Morrison is hopeless. Don’t know what your trying to imply about my comment 🤷‍♂️

[Bazzas right boot]

8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Why is Roy Keane there?  

 

 

 

 

 

I think Roy keane is terrible as a pundit. 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Diversity 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Bazzas right boot said:

 

 

I think Roy keane is terrible as a pundit. 

I don't mind any of them. I don't usually listen to them, as I don't watch the EPL that much.

[The Bannon Flick]

As mentioned earlier, this thread has unearthed a small number of ones to watch in the Hearts support. Got to hope they reflect on their comments and posts and perhaps put a bit more thought into what they are typing on a public forum going forward. 

 

Getting back to the original topic, Richard’s seems like a decent sort. 
 

Crucially, he’s got a personality which automatically lifts him above Shearer, Keown, Murphy and Jenas in the pundit stakes.

 

He’s been there and done it in terms of big clubs / trophies and medals so any contribution he has is equally as valid as any other pundit.

 

FWIW, I tend to do other things at HT & FT than listen to the analysis but from what I have heard, he seems ok.

 

On a side note, I mind he played at Tynecastle in the pre-season friendly where Sow made his debut. MR was sporting the biggest pair of shorts I’ve ever seen a footballer wear. Ginormous. 

 

[Mr Elwood P]

1 hour ago, stevie1874 said:

Never said it was. I’ve mentioned in earlier post I like Micah Richards but said Clinton Morrison is hopeless. Don’t know what your trying to imply about my comment 🤷‍♂️

Exactly.  Micah is a very good pundit.  Clinton is bang average. The previous poster managed to categorise both under 'idiot' . Common denominator ...

[Paolo]

On 06/03/2022 at 16:56, HeartOfWestLothian said:

Moronic comment. 
 

I like Micah Richards and his analysis on the game plus his humour with his colleagues. 
 

I remember him as a player too and he was incredible when he broke onto the scene, would have been some player if not for injuries. 
 

He’s more than earned his right to be a pundit on Sky Sports given what he achieved as a player. 

It’s probably true.  That doesn’t automatically mean he is crap though.  I think he works best with Keane.  Two completely contrasting characters, and more entertaining than Shearer and the likes.     

[Bazzas right boot]

2 hours ago, Jambo 4 Ever said:

Diversity 

 

Steven Naysmith has joined them. 

 

 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

4 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

I couldn't possibly agree with someone saying that a black person doesn't deserve a job.

 

When the feedback to your post is so one-sided and if you feel it is unjustified, then maybe instead of blaming the reader, you should think harder about what you wrote.

 

You brought up Richards' employment as a tick-box exercise, suggesting that he has the job only because he's filling a quota. It's most likely that you mean he's only got the job because he's black.

 

You also said "sadly", which is a indication that you don't think he deserves to be given the job.

 

Link the two together and what you've written is that he doesn't deserve the job because he's black and that, my friend, is a little bit racist.

Should be on merit not just because he is black 

[Nookie Bear]

17 minutes ago, Jambo 4 Ever said:

Should be on merit not just because he is black 

And he merits it 🤷‍♂️

[dannymack]

On 06/03/2022 at 16:27, Tasavallan said:

Ubiquitous football pundit.  BBC / ITV / Sky  What does he bring except an annoying laugh. 

Cannot take to him at all, his outburst and Roy Keanes facial expression says it all. 

 

I for one do not mind a joke and a laugh but that laugh of his grinds my bones as much as James Cordens face and presence.

 

Oh and put the race card away.

[WageThief]

Amazing I am banned from the Neilson thread probably for correctly calling posters idiots but others are allowed to be repeatedly idiotic on threads without any ban.

 

If morons want to talk about race quotas like some crap rebirth of Milton Friedman, can they not make a thread on the non football bit of the forum that I never look at?

[Tommy Brown]

7 hours ago, Sherbet said:

The best person for any job should be the best qualified  irrespective of colour,sex or religion 

Totally agree

 

Why did Micah Richards get the gig and why is he still in it? I personally think he is murder.

[WageThief]

22 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Totally agree

 

Why did Micah Richards get the gig and why is he still in it? I personally think he is murder.

Because 

[Roxy Hearts]

5 hours ago, Mr Elwood P said:

Exactly.  Micah is a very good pundit.  Clinton is bang average. The previous poster managed to categorise both under 'idiot' . Common denominator ...

People are allowed opinions bud. Calm down. 

[been here before]

27 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Totally agree

 

Why did Micah Richards get the gig and why is he still in it? I personally think he is murder.

 

 

[PortyBeach]

7 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

I couldn't possibly agree with someone saying that a black person doesn't deserve a job.

 

When the feedback to your post is so one-sided and if you feel it is unjustified, then maybe instead of blaming the reader, you should think harder about what you wrote.

 

You brought up Richards' employment as a tick-box exercise, suggesting that he has the job only because he's filling a quota. It's most likely that you mean he's only got the job because he's black.

 

You also said "sadly", which is a indication that you don't think he deserves to be given the job.

 

Link the two together and what you've written is that he doesn't deserve the job because he's black and that, my friend, is a little bit racist.

Oh dear. Like you, I wouldn’t agree a black person doesn’t deserve a job.

 I suggested Richard’s’ appointment might - sadly - be the result of a tick-box exercise.
I said “sadly” because if it was true, I think  that would be a sad situation.

And if such a tick-box exercise has been behind the appointment, then yes, it would be because of his ethnicity. That’s the whole point behind “diversity quotas”, surely? 
I don’t have any views on Richards’ abilities as a pundit so I don’t know whether he would qualify on merit or not.
But given others’ differing opinions on his qualities, I suggested the “quota” might be a factor.

Why has that provoked such fake outrage? Are the “offended” of the view that diversity quotas don’t exist? 

 

[PortyBeach]

9 hours ago, May one-six said:

You're right - you are missing something. Micah Richards is an ex-professional footballer who has played at the highest level of the game in England. He is clearly qualified to give an expert opinion and seems comfortable doing so in front of a camera.  Yet you are implying he is only employed as a pundit because he is black. That's about as clear an example of racism as you are likely to find.

 

9 hours ago, May one-six said:

You're right - you are missing something. Micah Richards is an ex-professional footballer who has played at the highest level of the game in England. He is clearly qualified to give an expert opinion and seems comfortable doing so in front of a camera.  Yet you are implying he is only employed as a pundit because he is black. That's about as clear an example of racism as you are likely to find.

Did you actually read my reply?

[WageThief]

31 minutes ago, PortyBeach said:

Oh dear. Like you, I wouldn’t agree a black person doesn’t deserve a job.

 I suggested Richard’s’ appointment might - sadly - be the result of a tick-box exercise.
I said “sadly” because if it was true, I think  that would be a sad situation.

And if such a tick-box exercise has been behind the appointment, then yes, it would be because of his ethnicity. That’s the whole point behind “diversity quotas”, surely? 
I don’t have any views on Richards’ abilities as a pundit so I don’t know whether he would qualify on merit or not.
But given others’ differing opinions on his qualities, I suggested the “quota” might be a factor.

Why has that provoked such fake outrage? Are the “offended” of the view that diversity quotas don’t exist? 

 

 

I'd say they exist.  Being really bothered about them makes you seem like a Milton Friedman idiot.  Bringing them up in relation to the most entertaining pundit makes you seem like an absolute moron.  I'd imagine Sky Sports get loads of viewing/clicks from Richards, especially alongside Keane.  

 

I suppose given how divisive "Slaney" is on Open Goal, they must be doing it to fulfil a diversity quota of twats.  You should try and get yourself on.

[I P Knightley]

35 minutes ago, PortyBeach said:

Oh dear. Like you, I wouldn’t agree a black person doesn’t deserve a job.

 I suggested Richard’s’ appointment might - sadly - be the result of a tick-box exercise.
I said “sadly” because if it was true, I think  that would be a sad situation.

And if such a tick-box exercise has been behind the appointment, then yes, it would be because of his ethnicity. That’s the whole point behind “diversity quotas”, surely? 
I don’t have any views on Richards’ abilities as a pundit so I don’t know whether he would qualify on merit or not.
But given others’ differing opinions on his qualities, I suggested the “quota” might be a factor.

Why has that provoked such fake outrage? Are the “offended” of the view that diversity quotas don’t exist? 

 

You're really not good at explaining yourself (assuming that you're trying not to appear to be saying racist things).

 

Why is it sad if there is a diversity quota? 

 

Do you know what proportion of professional players in the EPL are black? How do you think it would look if the entire panel on MotD was white or light brown? Of course they should recognise that all former players are up to the task. 

[Der Kaiser]

I like him.

 

Him and Keane work well together.

[AlphonseCapone]

Some fragile lads on this thread threatened by brown/black people and women on their TV. Tragic. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by AlphonseCapone

[May one-six]

10 hours ago, PortyBeach said:

 

Did you actually read my reply?

Yes, I did.

[spacerjoe]

White person is sh*te at his job. Called out for being sh*te.

 

Black person is sh*te at his job.

Entire recruitment process and company culture called into question.

 

Some people really have no self awareness at all. It's very sad 😔 

 

[Marooned In Oz]

On 06/03/2022 at 16:32, PortyBeach said:

Sadly, it might have something to do with ticking a box on a “must have” list…

What a horrendous comment.  

[Madjambo21]

He's brilliant as a pundit.

Brings humour and isn't afraid to say what he really thinks.

 

Check out MOTD top 10s with him Shearer and Lineker on bbc iplayer 

[H2]

On 06/03/2022 at 22:20, BackOfTheNet said:

Not all, and funnily enough the ones that are not generally provide the better insight (McFadden, Thompson, Stewart). But the most annoying ones are generally ex-OF, and how the likes Kevin Thomson and Alex Rae found themselves in a position where they get paid to have people hear their voice is beyond me.

Kris Boyd and Ally McCoist , I think are pretty good. 

[PortyBeach]

20 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

You're really not good at explaining yourself (assuming that you're trying not to appear to be saying racist things).

 

Why is it sad if there is a diversity quota? 

 

Do you know what proportion of professional players in the EPL are black? How do you think it would look if the entire panel on MotD was white or light brown? Of course they should recognise that all former players are up to the task. 

Having a quota is sad in my view because I don’t think there should be the need for that sort of thing. I don’t believe that’s a “racist” viewpoint.
Apparently you think quotas are necessary because we couldn’t possibly have a pundit panel that only contained white or brown faces.
But then you back-track by saying “all former players” should be recognised as “up to the task”. 
So, is that you saying quotas are necessary? Or that panel inclusion should only be on merit? I’m confused.

 

[PortyBeach]

11 hours ago, May one-six said:

Yes, I did.

You didn’t understand it then.

[The White Cockade]

22 hours ago, PortyBeach said:

Oh dear. Like you, I wouldn’t agree a black person doesn’t deserve a job.

 I suggested Richard’s’ appointment might - sadly - be the result of a tick-box exercise.
I said “sadly” because if it was true, I think  that would be a sad situation.

And if such a tick-box exercise has been behind the appointment, then yes, it would be because of his ethnicity. That’s the whole point behind “diversity quotas”, surely? 
I don’t have any views on Richards’ abilities as a pundit so I don’t know whether he would qualify on merit or not.
But given others’ differing opinions on his qualities, I suggested the “quota” might be a factor.

Why has that provoked such fake outrage? Are the “offended” of the view that diversity quotas don’t exist? 

 

You say the best person  should get the job

You don’t have a view on his ability as a pundit but you think he may have got the job because of his colour 

🤷🏻‍♂️

[PortyBeach]

21 hours ago, WageThief said:

 

I'd say they exist.  Being really bothered about them makes you seem like a Milton Friedman idiot.  Bringing them up in relation to the most entertaining pundit makes you seem like an absolute moron.  I'd imagine Sky Sports get loads of viewing/clicks from Richards, especially alongside Keane.  

 

I suppose given how divisive "Slaney" is on Open Goal, they must be doing it to fulfil a diversity quota of twats.  You should try and get yourself on.

Who said I was bothered by such quotas? I merely suggested they might be in operation - and you’ve agreed they do. So why the rage? What’s your point? 

Your point of course is that you’re a pretendy “liberal” affecting fake indignation. The fact is, a liberal-minded individual would challenge a point they disagreed with in a constructive manner. 
But that’s obviously not you, is it? 
No. Instead you expose your pretend political correctness with a stream of terms like “moron” and “idiot” which are offensive to the mentally disabled community. 
That moral high-ground isn’t looking too real, is it?

[PortyBeach]

41 minutes ago, The White Cockade said:

You say the best person  should get the job

You don’t have a view on his ability as a pundit but you think he may have got the job because of his colour 

🤷🏻‍♂️

I think the latter is a possibility, yes.

[I P Knightley]

2 hours ago, PortyBeach said:

Having a quota is sad in my view because I don’t think there should be the need for that sort of thing. I don’t believe that’s a “racist” viewpoint.
Apparently you think quotas are necessary because we couldn’t possibly have a pundit panel that only contained white or brown faces.
But then you back-track by saying “all former players” should be recognised as “up to the task”. 
So, is that you saying quotas are necessary? Or that panel inclusion should only be on merit? I’m confused.

 

That's putting it mildly - yet I'm the one accused of failing my comprehension.

 

Anyone competent should get the job as a football pundit.

 

The recruitment pool is former professional players.

 

There is a pie chart of races of professional players.

 

It would be alarming if the pie chart showing the profile of all football pundits didn't bear some resemblance to that of players.

 

Accepting something that is skewed differently from that or labelling any attempts to address an imbalance as "sad" comes across as racist as it appears that you prefer to maintain a status quo.

[WageThief]

1 hour ago, PortyBeach said:

Who said I was bothered by such quotas? I merely suggested they might be in operation - and you’ve agreed they do. So why the rage? What’s your point? 

Your point of course is that you’re a pretendy “liberal” affecting fake indignation. The fact is, a liberal-minded individual would challenge a point they disagreed with in a constructive manner. 
But that’s obviously not you, is it? 
No. Instead you expose your pretend political correctness with a stream of terms like “moron” and “idiot” which are offensive to the mentally disabled community. 
That moral high-ground isn’t looking too real, is it?

 

Who said I am raging?  Why is it people like you are always swanning around thinking you are putting everyone into a rage.  It's as clear as day who is raging.  

 

I see you are definitely not raging about political correctness or trying (and failing badly) to make some sort of point about it.  

 

As for "pretendy liberal", it's not a very good point to try and make when I already made my feelings clear about Milton Friedman.  A strange term to use if you aren't an American.

 

You can throw words around you discovered on twitter but in reality there is a great deal of difference between those who have "liberal" attitudes towards various things.  I.e. Someone who has a liberal attitude towards drugs may not have a liberal attitude towards free-market economics, or responding constructively to stupid points made by an idiot on a football forum.

 

If you could refrain from making your stupid points about politics on the football threads that'd be much appreciated.  Go to the shed and discuss the efficacy of positive discrimination with fellow football fans there.  And when you are over it, you can come back and discuss football here.

[Hesh]

On 07/03/2022 at 22:14, PortyBeach said:

 

I don’t have any views on Richards’ abilities as a pundit so I don’t know whether he would qualify on merit or not.
 

 

 

good god, why are you even posting on this thread then, it seems all you want to do is post about/race/colour

[May one-six]

14 hours ago, PortyBeach said:

You didn’t understand it then.

Yes, I did. You have implied throughout that Micah Richards only has his job as a pundit because he is black. That's racism, pure and simple.

[I P Knightley]

12 hours ago, WageThief said:

 

Who said I am raging?  Why is it people like you are always swanning around thinking you are putting everyone into a rage.  It's as clear as day who is raging.  

 

I see you are definitely not raging about political correctness or trying (and failing badly) to make some sort of point about it.  

 

As for "pretendy liberal", it's not a very good point to try and make when I already made my feelings clear about Milton Friedman.  A strange term to use if you aren't an American.

 

You can throw words around you discovered on twitter but in reality there is a great deal of difference between those who have "liberal" attitudes towards various things.  I.e. Someone who has a liberal attitude towards drugs may not have a liberal attitude towards free-market economics, or responding constructively to stupid points made by an idiot on a football forum.

 

If you could refrain from making your stupid points about politics on the football threads that'd be much appreciated.  Go to the shed and discuss the efficacy of positive discrimination with fellow football fans there.  And when you are over it, you can come back and discuss football here.

Are you trying to get a box ticked by recruiting him to The Shed?

 

I generally like it in The Shed and feel, as a Shed-leaning poster, that we've taken on more than our fair share of bigots.

[BackOfTheNet]

23 hours ago, H2 said:

Kris Boyd and Ally McCoist , I think are pretty good. 

McCoist is one of then best. Boyd to me isn’t great, but doesn’t irritate me as much as he does others.

[Weakened Offender]

On 07/03/2022 at 22:14, PortyBeach said:

Oh dear. Like you, I wouldn’t agree a black person doesn’t deserve a job.

 I suggested Richard’s’ appointment might - sadly - be the result of a tick-box exercise.
I said “sadly” because if it was true, I think  that would be a sad situation.

And if such a tick-box exercise has been behind the appointment, then yes, it would be because of his ethnicity. That’s the whole point behind “diversity quotas”, surely? 
I don’t have any views on Richards’ abilities as a pundit so I don’t know whether he would qualify on merit or not.
But given others’ differing opinions on his qualities, I suggested the “quota” might be a factor.

Why has that provoked such fake outrage? Are the “offended” of the view that diversity quotas don’t exist? 

 

 

I'm not sure why you are using the term 'fake outrage.' Most of the posts addressing your original post seem pretty genuine. 

 

Your excruciating backtracking now....not so genuine. 😉