Gary Lineker

[Lone Striker]

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Because it is part of their brand exposure, that's why. A YouTube video of highlights as a broadcast is not what they want.

They probably do.  Plenty other outlets for their brand exposure though

 

I guess  it would all hinge on whether the contract specifies precisely HOW the BBC show the highlights - e.g. 10 minutes per game chat in the studio with ex-player pundits, plus post-match interview with managers.

 

The BBC will probably have some difficulty obtaining future  highlights packages after all this, admittedly. 

[Mikey1874]

22 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Just like the LGBT “ cause “ he was “into” but still went to Qatar 🇶🇦 

 

The BBC was contractually committed to covering the World Cup even before it was awarded to Qatar.

 

Covering it was different to playing in it or being worried about a booking for Harry Kane for wearing an armband.

[Costanza]

MoTD was sh1te tonight but still it wasn't the worst 'football content' tonight.

I'm still not 100% that GB News isn't some form of performance art satire.

 

 

[redjambo]

13 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Won't happen 

 

Note Ulysses' diplomatic use of "in some way". There's a good chance that they will meet in the middle, but that the BBC will have to travel much further to reach that position than Lineker in order to keep their chairman in place.

[redjambo]

9 minutes ago, Korky said:

No it wasn’t. It was an absolute pleasure to watch the highlights unencumbered by hysterical commentary and superfluous and dull punditry. 
Thank you Gary!  
 

 

Guaranteed that if Lineker had stepped back because of tweeting support for the proposed immigration measures, you would not feel this way and you would have most certainly not posted this. The problem with being unbending and virulent with your political views is that folk get the measure of you pretty quickly and can read the meaning and intention behind what you post.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Guaranteed that if Lineker had stepped back because of tweeting support for the proposed immigration measures, you would not feel this way and you would have most certainly not posted this. The problem with being unbending and virulent with your political views is that folk get the measure of you pretty quickly and can read the meaning and intention behind what you post.

 

 

Thank you, Gary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[redjambo]

23 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

Why would they do that ?  The PL have already pocketed the money - no skin off their nose if the BBC show the highlights with no pundits.

 

In order not to damage the Premier League's reputation with the presentation of their product, the contract with the BBC will probably include provisions on how the highlights are to be presented. Geoff's point was valid in that if those provisions weren't met in tonight's show then the EPL would have recourse. However, personally, if this is the case then I think they'll let it slide with a one-off like tonight. If the highlights were to be presented in a similar truncated form for several weeks though, that would be a different matter.

[Lone Striker]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Note Ulysses' diplomatic use of "in some way". There's a good chance that they will meet in the middle, but that the BBC will have to travel much further to reach that position than Lineker in order to keep their chairman in place.

Its a perfect example of how  modern-day "broadcast"  technology (FB, Twatter) has highlighted the need for a written employment contract to be clear and unambiguous about what subjects an employee/contractor can make public announcements about...... and what they can't.  What the  boundaries are, and what the consequences are if the employee/contractor breaches those boundaries.

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

In order not to damage the Premier League's reputation with the presentation of their product, the contract with the BBC will probably include provisions on how the highlights are to be presented. Geoff's point was valid in that if those provisions weren't met in tonight's show then the EPL would have recourse. However, personally, if this is the case then I think they'll let it slide with a one-off like tonight. If the highlights were to be presented in a similar truncated form for several weeks though, that would be a different matter.

Exactly. And no doubt if this drags out in a way that puts the next set of highlights in doubt, more questions will be asked by the media of the Premier League for their thoughts.

[JudyJudyJudy]

26 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

They’ve sold the rights so I doubt they’ll care. 

 

Did you watch the World Cup? 

Yes . Did you?
 

Most people did.

 

Therefore most people were complicit in given a certain respectability and international legitimacy to that nation . However Mr Lineker and his ilk also made profit from this by being given a salary and Also being present in that country . I’d consider that quite obscene . 

Edited March 11, 2023 by JudyJudyJudy

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Lone Striker said:

Its a perfect example of how  modern-day "broadcast"  technology (FB, Twatter) has highlighted the need for a written employment contract to be clear and unambiguous about what subjects an employee/contractor can make public announcements about...... and what they can't.  What the  boundaries are, and what the consequences are if the employee/contractor breaches those boundaries.

 

 

That is true and yet the key point is that Lineker is not a BBC employee. What we have no idea about is whether there is recourse against Lineker's company by the BBC but given the way they are floundering I doubt it.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes . Did you?
 

Most people did.

 

Therefore most people were complicit in given a certain respectability to that nation . However Mr Lineker and his ilk also made profit from this by being given a salary and Also being present in that country . I’d consider that quite obscene . 

As I said above, what Lineker's personal integrity level is isn't the issue here.

[Des Lynam]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Yes . Did you?
 

Most people did.

 

Therefore most people were complicit in given a certain respectability to that nation . However Mr Lineker and his ilk also made profit from this by being given a salary and Also being present in that country . I’d consider that quite obscene . 

Maybe he was contractually obliged to do the World Cup. 

[Lone Striker]

11 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Guaranteed that if Lineker had stepped back because of tweeting support for the proposed immigration measures, you would not feel this way and you would have most certainly not posted this. The problem with being unbending and virulent with your political views is that folk get the measure of you pretty quickly and can read the meaning and intention behind what you post.

A bit harsh, Red.  Korky was just commenting that he enjoyed MotD without the waffle - not sure why you're insinuating other stuff if circumstances had been different. 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Lone Striker said:

Its a perfect example of how  modern-day "broadcast"  technology (FB, Twatter) has highlighted the need for a written employment contract to be clear and unambiguous about what subjects an employee/contractor can make public announcements about...... and what they can't.  What the  boundaries are, and what the consequences are if the employee/contractor breaches those boundaries.

 

 

Indeed. A modern HR minefield, with a delicate balance to be had between protecting the organisation's reputation and allowing freedom of speech in one's own personal time, all with a significant legal backdrop.

[Mikey1874]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Indeed. A modern HR minefield, with a delicate balance to be had between protecting the organisation's reputation and allowing freedom of speech in one's own personal time, all with a significant legal backdrop.

 

But the BBC has managed that balance comfortably in recent years.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/11/gary-lineker-was-singled-out-from-a-long-list-of-bbc-stars-who-express-political-views

[Lone Striker]

3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

That is true and yet the key point is that Lineker is not a BBC employee. What we have no idea about is whether there is recourse against Lineker's company by the BBC but given the way they are floundering I doubt it.

Isn't it even simpler than that ..... in so much as Davie seems to be admitting that the BBC don't have the same "control" over a contractor as they do over a direct employee ?    Its almost as if none of the BBC heirarchy imagined a scenario like this ever happening. Which seems beyond belief, imo

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

But the BBC has managed that balance comfortably in recent years.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/11/gary-lineker-was-singled-out-from-a-long-list-of-bbc-stars-who-express-political-views

 

Indeed.

[JudyJudyJudy]

13 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

Maybe he was contractually obliged to do the World Cup. 

He could have argued that due to his 

“ deeply held principles “ he couldn’t participate in the WC? After all the BBC gets derided all the time for its “political correctness “ so would surely have allowed him to back out . ? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

15 minutes ago, Lone Striker said:

A bit harsh, Red.  Korky was just commenting that he enjoyed MotD without the waffle - not sure why you're insinuating other stuff if circumstances had been different. 

Thought so too but couldn’t be arsed responding to it .

[Lone Striker]

11 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

But the BBC has managed that balance comfortably in recent years.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/11/gary-lineker-was-singled-out-from-a-long-list-of-bbc-stars-who-express-political-views

Interesting article.  It would appear that the BBC have managed the balance in these examples by ignoring them !!

[Des Lynam]

1 minute ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

He could have argued that due to his 

“ deeply held principles “ he couldn’t participate in the WC? After all the BBC gets derided all the time for its “political correctness “ so would surely have allowed him to back out . ? 

Your deeply held principles didn’t stop you from watching the World Cup. 
 

What has Gary working as a presenter at the WC go to do with this debate? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Des Lynam said:

Your deeply held principles didn’t stop you from watching the World Cup. 
 

What has Gary working as a presenter at the WC go to do with this debate? 

Who said I had “ deeply held principles “ about it ? We are talking about Lineker and his principles being up for sale . I could have lied and had some high moral ground and said I didn’t watch the WC but I’m not a hypocrite . 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 10/03/2023 at 18:20, Dawnrazor said:

Research has shown that planting trees on heather moorland reduces carbon capture and increases the release of carbon due to trees trying out the peat, this is fairly well known but ignored.

 

I'm behind on this thread but while this is technically correct, it hasn't shown that we shouldn't plant trees. It's shown that we should plant trees but not in peat bogs.

 

And having done research on multiple tree planting sites in Scotland, I can say it isn't ignored. Multiple places I visited were removing trees from bogs and restoring them while replanting around them, which is what is scientifically indicated.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

 

4 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

"Forests" like the vast non native conifer plantations that have been planted all over the UK are in no way "vital" to carbon capture, as the scientific paper I posted show, they capture less carbon than the heather and grass moorland they were planted on, they release carbon when the areas were ploughed, the peat is turned over, oxidises and releases Carbon directly into the atmosphere, the acidification of the burns and rivers that happens after large scale planting of non native coniferous trees has been an ecological disaster for the waterways of the UK, no to mention the loss of habitat for hares and ground nesting birds, not ****ing Grouse, but all the rest, and hunting ground for bids of prey, how can anyone, never mind someone claiming to be a scientist day that there forests are "vital"?

 

Right, so I've now caught up and seen your back and forth, and I'll say certainly this is all in keeping with my latest reading of the research, but also I'm not sure how it would really refute anything the RSPB would do. Those stands of Sitka planted like so much corn are absolutely wretched habitat for any wildlife—doing fieldwork I ended up looking for anything living other than Siitka in the middle of them and honestly not finding anything except a very small amount of lichen and mushrooms, and not much of those. Not even bugs.

 

The RSPB-sponsored projects (which were controversial for other reasons, mostly to do with sea eagles) were all native broadleaf focused.

 

But maybe I'm misremembering how this all started . . .

[Gizmo]

8 hours ago, Sooperstar said:

Is that on BBC Peebles? 

No, they went woke. The boy in charge is on strike and there's a sheep trying to man the broadcast console. 

[Tommy Brown]

So a normal MotD is 75-90 mins

Tonight under 30mins (6 matches), WTF.

Have the editors withdrawn their services too.

[The Mighty Thor]

7 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Now now, Smithee.  Aren't we forgetting who the real victim is here?   

😂

[The Mighty Thor]

Given we're talking about impartiality it'll be interesting to see how the absolutely unbiased BBC puts itself forward this morning on it's flagship politics talk show Kuenssberg?

 

You just know the top journalist and ace presenter (and most definitely not a paid Tory shill) will be getting to the bottom of the big political stories and holding the government to account. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

It certainly appears that the fascists overestimated public opinion.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

It certainly appears that the fascists overestimated public opinion.

 

Or, in actual fact, the BBC made a Horlicks of the whole thing.

[RobboM]

It's a touch ironic that we are on a football forum

with lots of folks saying the MOTD post match punditry is overblown and unnecessary when we will colectively spend the full next week (minimum) going over yesterday's Scottish Cup shitshow in minute detail 😂

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

3 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Or, in actual fact, the BBC made a Horlicks of the whole thing.

That's what I said.

[RobboM]

There's got to be a huge question mark over how exactly this incident came about.
Did the Tories directly intervene to make sure Lineker was dealt with?
Or has putting Tory party apparatchiks in place in the BBC been enough and they are trying to appease their political masters?

[il Duce McTarkin]

11 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Oh sorry you must be feeling rather butthurt , after todays result ! Mind you give you  more of an excuse   to express your bigotry , wrapped in “ banter “ 

 

 

Thought you'd knw more about butthurt than me, tbh.

Nice to see you showing your true colours, though. No Hearts fan would attempt to rub it in to another after a quarter final defeat to Celtic. Your Hearts supprting credentials are as much of a fraud as the rest of you, it would appear.

 

Toodle pip ya big phoney.

[DETTY29]

8 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

Your deeply held principles didn’t stop you from watching the World Cup. 
 

What has Gary working as a presenter at the WC go to do with this debate? 

I saw a thread where James admitted along the lines where debates get a bit heated be drops in stuff drom the Mail Online just for kicks...

[Des Lynam]

6 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Who said I had “ deeply held principles “ about it ? We are talking about Lineker and his principles being up for sale . I could have lied and had some high moral ground and said I didn’t watch the WC but I’m not a hypocrite . 

Sorry Judy it’s just that there is barely a thread on here where you don’t mention your fondness for the boaby and that’s something as you know is slightly frowned upon in Qatar. 
 

I’ve probably mentioned on here Lineker and Neville being hypocrites for going to Qatar but that has nothing to do with what we’re discussing. Are you suggesting those in the BBC and the government that are involved in this shitstorm are good honest people? 

[il Duce McTarkin]

11 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

Also out of order, imo.

 

Could you two start again perhaps, but without the personal attacks? Although it's wildly off-topic, it's quite an interesting subject.

 

All the Mod slots are currenty occupied, red.

[DETTY29]

Contains the f bomb near the end.

 

 

 

[joondalupjambo]

9 hours ago, Lone Striker said:

Its a perfect example of how  modern-day "broadcast"  technology (FB, Twatter) has highlighted the need for a written employment contract to be clear and unambiguous about what subjects an employee/contractor can make public announcements about...... and what they can't.  What the  boundaries are, and what the consequences are if the employee/contractor breaches those boundaries.

 

 

Yep that is spot on.  This boils down to an HR issue and by only having guidelines the BBC have left the door open big time.  Big difference between contractual rules, and specific terms written into a contract versus guidelines.   I would think that GL has had his lawyers look over his companies contract, and the statements within it in relation to him being an employee of that company and they may have  found something in his favour hence the reason why he does not need to pull back and double downed so quickly.

 

So we have a major organisation, a British institution funded by the tax payer only having guidelines that must suit them, for whatever the reasons and they have been found wanting in this episode because of this.  So the question, in this day and age is why only have guidelines in the BBC and not tighter terms and conditions, rules etc, who is that benefiting?

[doctor jambo]

I’m not sure what the problem is..

Lineker is currently busy fighting to prove he is not and never has been employed by the BBC, if he proves this, he does not owe £4.9 million to HMRC, though quite why he would funnel his earnings through such a scheme to reduce the money available to fund overseas aid and social care is one for him to answer.

If he is not an employee , as he states , he can say what he likes, and they can can him with no payoff when they want.

simples.

if he is an employee he owes s lot of money, but is protected by employment rights and due process.

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

10 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Now now, Smithee.  Aren't we forgetting who the real victim is here?   

That's about the size of it. How the **** does a tweet by GL calling out an inhumane policy and inflammatory language end up being about a perpetual victim?

[XB52]

57 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

I saw a thread where James admitted along the lines where debates get a bit heated be drops in stuff drom the Mail Online just for kicks...

He gets away with trolling most threads on here so best just putting him on ignore and definitely not quoting him

[XB52]

6 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

I’m not sure what the problem is..

Lineker is currently busy fighting to prove he is not and never has been employed by the BBC, if he proves this, he does not owe £4.9 million to HMRC, though quite why he would funnel his earnings through such a scheme to reduce the money available to fund overseas aid and social care is one for him to answer.

If he is not an employee , as he states , he can say what he likes, and they can can him with no payoff when they want.

simples.

if he is an employee he owes s lot of money, but is protected by employment rights and due process.

 

Once again, a tory totally ignores the issue. The problem is the BBC being influenced by the tories to try and silence criticism of them. 

[Lord Montpelier]

3 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Once again, a tory totally ignores the issue. The problem is the BBC being influenced by the tories to try and silence criticism of them. 

Problem is more deep rooted   

 

Lefties have been infiltrating media organisations for a few years now trying to get folk cancelled. This may well be an indication of the right striking back. 

 

Lineker has the right to say what he likes in my view within the bounds of reason. As do I, as do you. But what we are seeing here is the ongoing manifestation of a stupid culture war that needs to stop on both sides. 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Once again, a tory totally ignores the issue. The problem is the BBC being influenced by the tories to try and silence criticism of them. 

 

How long before the conclusion is that it's not fit for purpose, let's tear it down

[doctor jambo]

4 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Once again, a tory totally ignores the issue. The problem is the BBC being influenced by the tories to try and silence criticism of them. 

Is it? The issue is with someone breaking the terms of their employment .

I agree with what he said, by the way, but you have to abide by the rules of your employment.

Amd if you don’t like them, don’t work for them.

All employers have such things.

The BBC one he has broken is widely known.

 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Lord Montpelier said:

Problem is more deep rooted   

 

Lefties have been infiltrating media organisations for a few years now trying to get folk cancelled. This may well be an indication of the right striking back. 

 

Lineker has the right to say what he likes in my view within the bounds of reason. As do I, as do you. But what we are seeing here is the ongoing manifestation of a stupid culture war that needs to stop on both sides. 

 

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

Is it? The issue is with someone breaking the terms of their employment .

I agree with what he said, by the way, but you have to abide by the rules of your employment.

Amd if you don’t like them, don’t work for them.

All employers have such things.

The BBC one he has broken is widely known.

 

 

No it isn't, the BBC stated years ago in clear terms that impartiality rules don't apply to him.

 

This is about the Tory led BBC defending the Tories.

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

2 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Once again, a tory totally ignores the issue. The problem is the BBC being influenced by the tories to try and silence criticism of them. 

This point keeps getting ignored.  Not satisfied with having Murdoch and Dacre's toxic influence on the political narrative the UKG are trying to control the BBC. 

I don't particularly like Lineker but I agree with what he said and as far as I can tell he was perfectly within his rights to say it. 

Bringing other shit up about him is irrelevant. It's just going for the man rather than the ball.