Jump to content

Tiss, Thompson and Charlie Sacked from GSS


Recommended Posts

The best thing about Le Tiss being on the show was that he actually knows about Southampton, whereas other pundits only know about the top six and give out generic lines for all the others. Now it's just going to be how we lost 9-0 last season every week.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HarvSFC said:

The best thing about Le Tiss being on the show was that he actually knows about Southampton, whereas other pundits only know about the top six and give out generic lines for all the others. Now it's just going to be how we lost 9-0 last season every week.

To be fair to Jeff, he's pretty knowledgeable and onboard with us too - I think his son's (or one of them) supports us and he lives in this area.

But rumours today is that he's set to be next and they're ditching Jeff too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Three people have basically been sacked because of their age, race and gender. Individually they don’t deserve to lose their jobs but they have because it’s good PR.

Individually some people might have the opinion that they are dull as fuck now. Nothing to do with their age, race or gender. You are quite literally making up reasons in your head for these people being let go. It's quite obviously a part of a huge shake up at Sky over their football coverage but you're so precious and desperate to be offended that you've made up reasons for their contracts not being renewed, got angry about it, replaced them with people you don't like and then got angry about that too. 

 

1 hour ago, beatlesaint said:

You haven’t read what I’ve said before launching off on the racism route. If the best candidates to replace the three are all white men they will not all get selected, merit goes out the window. If they are selected on merit then great but they won’t be. It’s not a pop at women or black men in the slightest ffs

Ummmmmmmm....You said the people getting the job wont get it on merit, and they will definitely be a woman and a black man. But that is definitely not a pop at women or black men. OK then.

Anyway, as is being reported today they will be rotating the slots, not selecting just 3 people to replace them. So you all got your racist and sexist knickers in a twist over nothing because you're all so desperate to be offended that some people getting moved on because heaven forbid some people might find their banter, clichés and rants boring is a perfect excuse for you to let off some steam. 

Edited by Fabrice29
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Batman said:

racism just aint saintly....even positive racism

In response to this (as I am out of posts) - you'd have to explain what you mean by positive racism

Look, no doubt MLT and co where not sacked, rather told they would no longer be required (and on effectively a contract)

But as Lighthouse said, they have been 'moved aside' because of the age, race and gender.  The last time I looked, those are characteristics protected by law/employment law.

I do wonder if SS will remain as popular going forward...

They've been moved aside because their commentary, tired phrases and attempts at humour have passed their use-by-date - its not about age, gender or race - well certainly not gender or race anyway.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Individually some people might have the opinion that they are dull as fuck now. Nothing to do with their age, race or gender. You are quite literally making up reasons in your head for these people being let go. It's quite obviously a part of a huge shake up at Sky over their football coverage but you're so precious and desperate to be offended that you've made up reasons for their contracts not being renewed, got angry about it, replaced them with people you don't like and then got angry about that too. 

 

Ummmmmmmm....You said the people getting the job wont get it on merit, and they will definitely be a woman and a black man. But that is definitely not a pop at women or black men. OK then.

Anyway, as is being reported today they will be rotating the slots, not selecting just 3 people to replace them. So you all got your racist and sexist knickers in a twist over nothing because you're all so desperate to be offended that some people getting moved on because heaven forbid some people might find their banter, clichés and rants boring is a perfect excuse for you to let off some steam. 

To be fair though your first post on this thread stated 'everyone uses it as an excuse to have a good old rant about foreigners, women and people who aren't white' when in fact only one post made those comments. Basically, you couldn't wait to have a pop at those with a different view on the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, austsaint said:

They've been moved aside because their commentary, tired phrases and attempts at humour have passed their use-by-date - its not about age, gender or race - well certainly not gender or race anyway.   

Maybe so. Personally I've always enjoyed the show because the pundits would speak their mind whether it was popular or not, added to that it was often a good laugh. I fear that any new presenters will be typically bland, not daring to say anything controversial or humorous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I back the decision if they have a good list of replacements, i'd be good with Merson, Bullard (or another) who is a bridge from Merse to modern footballer and then someone like Richards for recent experience.

Morrision is michael owen in disguise and they better not have anymore liverpool players on sky.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, iansums said:

To be fair though your first post on this thread stated 'everyone uses it as an excuse to have a good old rant about foreigners, women and people who aren't white' when in fact only one post made those comments. Basically, you couldn't wait to have a pop at those with a different view on the matter.

Count again. 5 of the first 8 before my post make comments towards it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Count again. 5 of the first 8 before my post make comments towards it.

Two at a push, three if I'd managed to get in there before you posted but with the site running so slowly I failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HarvSFC said:

The best thing about Le Tiss being on the show was that he actually knows about Southampton, whereas other pundits only know about the top six and give out generic lines for all the others. Now it's just going to be how we lost 9-0 last season every week.

That's the most important thing for me - not having a Saints focus will mean all we will get is the usual "done well since the 9-0", "credit to th Board for not sacking Ralph" (they couldn't afford to - plus he was the best we could get - thankfully it worked out), "Danny ings to [insert top 6 club here]", "sell all your best players - re Hojberg" (really? - we will manage fine without him, "the JWP terrific delivery" trope that gets trotted out just before the ball hits the first man at the near post. "Ooh that mario Lemina looks like a good player"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

Individually some people might have the opinion that they are dull as fuck now. Nothing to do with their age, race or gender. You are quite literally making up reasons in your head for these people being let go. It's quite obviously a part of a huge shake up at Sky over their football coverage but you're so precious and desperate to be offended that you've made up reasons for their contracts not being renewed, got angry about it, replaced them with people you don't like and then got angry about that too. 

I’m neither precious nor desperate to be offended. Simply disappointed that an on screen chemistry I used to really enjoy has now been removed. I believe they’ve been sacked because they’re all ageing white men, doesn’t make for good PR and I believe that is wrong. If you believe it really is just a big ‘freshen up’ and that Kammy, Murray and Sue Smith are next for the chop, then that’s up to you.

 

Of course, if I’m in the minority then so be it. If the new panel and/or format is riveting success and there is a huge surge in viewers then my opinion matters not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff apart, I can't really stick any of them on it, including Le Tiss if I am honest, so for me, changes may be a good. I do wonder if their replacements will be the insightful, well researched and articulate individuals required to perform the role of commentator...or just more of the same. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

These aren't surgeons or engineers, where there's a quantifiable way of evaluating merit. They're just a group of people who talk about live football matches on a Saturday.

They didn't 'qualify' for the job in the first place as a result of a rigorous, empirical process that selected MLT and Phil Thompson as the best possible candidates. Someone just decided that they were right in one moment and has decided that they're wrong for this one. 

There's no injustice here, and suggesting otherwise presumes that these three somehow have more of a right to be on tv than anyone else, which is, of course, not even remotely the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Totton Saint said:

"It only needs good men to stay silent for evil to prevail." Sorry if I got the original quote slightly mangled but the point is the same. Why do we allow these PC people go unapposed?

I somehow don't think that replacing the presenters of a football chat show qualifies as "evil".

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Totton Saint said:

"It only needs good men to stay silent for evil to prevail." Sorry if I got the original quote slightly mangled but the point is the same. Why do we allow these PC people go unapposed?

Jesus wept.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I did not mean it was evil to just sack these people but it will be evil if the minority PC crowd slowly bur surely completely change the way we interact . Orwell's 1984 anyone?

I reckon it is not far from evil for those sacked at a stroke with no explanation. Certainly very callous after all the years service and pleasure they have given to so many ,if not every one

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2020 at 19:31, verlaine1979 said:

These aren't surgeons or engineers, where there's a quantifiable way of evaluating merit. They're just a group of people who talk about live football matches on a Saturday.

They didn't 'qualify' for the job in the first place as a result of a rigorous, empirical process that selected MLT and Phil Thompson as the best possible candidates. Someone just decided that they were right in one moment and has decided that they're wrong for this one. 

There's no injustice here, and suggesting otherwise presumes that these three somehow have more of a right to be on tv than anyone else, which is, of course, not even remotely the case.

The new bods who  are right for this “one moment” will be BAME or female, preferably both. Coincidence, I presume. 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The new bods who  are right for this “one moment” will be BAME or female, preferably both. Coincidence, I presume. 

Probably no coincidence at all - it's no secret that the media does its best to reflect social change back at the society that's changing. It's how you stay relevant/in business.

The only people who still want the only faces they see on tv to be white men over the age of fifty, are - you've guessed it - white men over the age of fifty. But no one is obliging you to move with the times - your feelings and opinions can stay the same until you die if that's what you want. Statistically, it's unlikely to be that long.

However, corporations are obliged to try and do everything they can to avoid dying - hence why they are less resistant to change than you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, verlaine1979 said:

Probably no coincidence at all - it's no secret that the media does its best to reflect social change back at the society that's changing. It's how you stay relevant/in business.

The only people who still want the only faces they see on tv to be white men over the age of fifty, are - you've guessed it - white men over the age of fifty. But no one is obliging you to move with the times - your feelings and opinions can stay the same until you die if that's what you want. Statistically, it's unlikely to be that long.

However, corporations are obliged to try and do everything they can to avoid dying - hence why they are less resistant to change than you are.

No, you survive by producing the best possible product and staying ahead of your competition. People are quite happy to buy iphones built in Chinese factories to the point that Apple is now worth more than the entire FTSE 100.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

No, you survive by producing the best possible product and staying ahead of your competition. People are quite happy to buy iphones built in Chinese factories to the point that Apple is now worth more than the entire FTSE 100.

You think you're disagreeing with me, but you aren't. You also seem to have confused making the best possible product for you, with making the best possible product for the market.

You'd rather stick with what you know - that's fine. It just makes you one of the people Henry Ford said would've asked him for a faster horse.

Sky have presumably decided that thinning out the herd of old, reactionary white dudes will be good for their long term business. Time will tell if they're right, but unless you're privy to their internal viewership numbers, sentiment analysis, focus group research and all the other data points that huge media businesses look at every single day, I'd say you're unlikely to be in a position to decree that they're wrong ahead of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, verlaine1979 said:

You think you're disagreeing with me, but you aren't. You also seem to have confused making the best possible product for you, with making the best possible product for the market.

You'd rather stick with what you know - that's fine. It just makes you one of the people Henry Ford said would've asked him for a faster horse.

Sky have presumably decided that thinning out the herd of old, reactionary white dudes will be good for their long term business. Time will tell if they're right, but unless you're privy to their internal viewership numbers, sentiment analysis, focus group research and all the other data points that huge media businesses look at every single day, I'd say you're unlikely to be in a position to decree that they're wrong ahead of time.

No, I've already said if I'm an outlier and this change brings a big upturn in viewership for Soccer Saturday, then so be it. If that's how it works a women are going to start watching in reasonable numbers because a woman is talking, then fair play to Sky.

All I can say is it's never worked like that for me and it didn't work for F1 8 years ago. I've never watched an episode of Antiques Roadshow, even though it features almost entirely white people but I love Red Dwarf, which has a 50% black cast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, verlaine1979 said:

 

You'd rather stick with what you know - that's fine. It just makes you one of the people Henry Ford said would've asked him for a faster horse. 

Sky have presumably decided that thinning out the herd of old, reactionary white dudes will be good for their long term business. 

What a load of old pony. Nobody is arguing for “sticking with what they know”, if they were, they’d want Rodney Marsh & Frank Maclintock still appearing. Surely in 2020 people should be getting the job on merit, not in the basis they lack a penis or have a certain skin colour. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What a load of old pony. Nobody is arguing for “sticking with what they know”, if they were, they’d want Rodney Marsh & Frank Maclintock still appearing. Surely in 2020 people should be getting the job on merit, not in the basis they lack a penis or have a certain skin colour. 
 

 

Getting the job on merit? How would you measure that, exactly? Are there viable stats for who is the best pundit? Expected-valid-points-made per game? Unforced solecisms per 90 minutes of commentary? Or is it just down to whose face fits for a given moment in time?

And please don't try and argue that having been a good player is qualification for being on TV. The footballing world practically exploded with shock with Gary Neville started showing up on Sky, precisely because he was able to form a coherent thought. Ex-footballers who have something enlightening to say about the game without resorting to cliche and repetition are extremely few and far between, and none of the GSS panel fit that bill.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to assume that your implication that only white people with penises can be meritorious is just an errant bit of logic, rather than an unpleasant glimpse at your soul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/08/2020 at 11:32, iansums said:

If it means Clinton Morrison with that hideous Black London youth accent (I don't know any other way of describing it) then I stop watching.

And there you have it. That is brilliant.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, verlaine1979 said:

Getting the job on merit? How would you measure that, exactly? Are there viable stats for who is the best pundit? Expected-valid-points-made per game? Unforced solecisms per 90 minutes of commentary? Or is it just down to whose face fits for a given moment in time?

And please don't try and argue that having been a good player is qualification for being on TV. The footballing world practically exploded with shock with Gary Neville started showing up on Sky, precisely because he was able to form a coherent thought. Ex-footballers who have something enlightening to say about the game without resorting to cliche and repetition are extremely few and far between, and none of the GSS panel fit that bill.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to assume that your implication that only white people with penises can be meritorious is just an errant bit of logic, rather than an unpleasant glimpse at your soul.

The whole culture of the show is “mates down the pub” vibe. Ex players who played at a decent standard, watch the game & then tell us what happened whilst indulging in banter. All held together by a fantastic host. It was ground breaking, which is why it was copied. The whole thing was underpinned by a degree of credibility, brought about by the playing ability of the pundits. A credibility someone without a penis lacks. 
 

You may not like the format, but it was incredibly successful.Ive no doubt the woke changes being made will make it less and less successful until it eventually dies a slow death. One thing for sure, if Jeff goes, it’s over. 
 

 

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, verlaine1979 said:

You think you're disagreeing with me, but you aren't. You also seem to have confused making the best possible product for you, with making the best possible product for the market.

You'd rather stick with what you know - that's fine. It just makes you one of the people Henry Ford said would've asked him for a faster horse.

Sky have presumably decided that thinning out the herd of old, reactionary white dudes will be good for their long term business. Time will tell if they're right, but unless you're privy to their internal viewership numbers, sentiment analysis, focus group research and all the other data points that huge media businesses look at every single day, I'd say you're unlikely to be in a position to decree that they're wrong ahead of time.

I guess the first initial comparisons of this tactic would be to see what has become of two of their staple Sunday morning shows that have seen male presenters replaced with female presenters. Sunday Supplement and Goals on Sunday have both been on for more than a decade, and within one season of ‘change’ have both now been cancelled..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, verlaine1979 said:

Getting the job on merit? How would you measure that, exactly? Are there viable stats for who is the best pundit? Expected-valid-points-made per game? Unforced solecisms per 90 minutes of commentary? Or is it just down to whose face fits for a given moment in time?

And please don't try and argue that having been a good player is qualification for being on TV. The footballing world practically exploded with shock with Gary Neville started showing up on Sky, precisely because he was able to form a coherent thought. Ex-footballers who have something enlightening to say about the game without resorting to cliche and repetition are extremely few and far between, and none of the GSS panel fit that bill.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to assume that your implication that only white people with penises can be meritorious is just an errant bit of logic, rather than an unpleasant glimpse at your soul.

How about giving Steven Davis a go? Ok he is a white male but he is shit at football and can string a sentence together.

Edited by stknowle
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, saintwbu said:

I guess the first initial comparisons of this tactic would be to see what has become of two of their staple Sunday morning shows that have seen male presenters replaced with female presenters. Sunday Supplement and Goals on Sunday have both been on for more than a decade, and within one season of ‘change’ have both now been cancelled..

That's probably more to do with COVID than anything else. Sky are going a bit mental with their cut backs, but with the online content nowadays and the PL review show the need for those sorts of shows has diminished slightly. I never really saw the point of the 'Debate' show, which has been canned as well.

I guess in a way Sky Sports are evolving in the same way they evolved when they ditched FanZone, You're on Sky Sports etc - both massive staples of their 90's coverage, but they moved on from those.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im seeing MLT this Sunday at The Concorde club for a "Q&A" ..... I imagine he will start the show off by saying "im under NDA and cant discuss as to why I left" . If he is not, I imagine he may well say something controversial (which got him in this position in the first place)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, saintwbu said:

I guess the first initial comparisons of this tactic would be to see what has become of two of their staple Sunday morning shows that have seen male presenters replaced with female presenters. Sunday Supplement and Goals on Sunday have both been on for more than a decade, and within one season of ‘change’ have both now been cancelled..

Exactly. Both great programmes, both fucked up by wokeness. GoS already had Kammy, but had to have someone without a penis as well. It’s not just football, their cricket coverage is going down the pan as well. As for TMS, dear god, some of the chicks they have on there make it unlistenable. What’s the obsession with birds being on these broadcast. I don’t see too many blokes pushing for inclusion on loose women. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Exactly. Both great programmes, both fucked up by wokeness. GoS already had Kammy, but had to have someone without a penis as well. It’s not just football, their cricket coverage is going down the pan as well. As for TMS, dear god, some of the chicks they have on there make it unlistenable. What’s the obsession with birds being on these broadcast. I don’t see too many blokes pushing for inclusion on loose women. 

Chicks and birds 🤦‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Exactly. Both great programmes, both fucked up by wokeness. GoS already had Kammy, but had to have someone without a penis as well. It’s not just football, their cricket coverage is going down the pan as well. As for TMS, dear god, some of the chicks they have on there make it unlistenable. What’s the obsession with birds being on these broadcast. I don’t see too many blokes pushing for inclusion on loose women. 

You're not wrong on TMS, painful listening these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Mr Saints said:

You're not wrong on TMS, painful listening these days.

I really enjoy the current crop of TMS commentators. Isa Guha is excellent. Opinions, opinions...

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Another new low for le tissier as he compares being asked to help contain and stop a virus with social measures and wearing a mask. To Anne Frank being hunted down because of her religion in WW2.

😵 oh my days......

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

That latest post on Anne Frank is a whole different level - he also laughed at someone who said it was offensive to holocaust survivors.  The club can't keep him as an ambassador if he's acting like that.

Yeah I'm afraid it is. Even my missus said "if he hadn't lost his job at Sky before he would have now"

He's like two different people, the personable, amiable guy you see on tv or meet in the street etc then theres the one who sits behind a keyboard spouting theories left right and centre.

Sorry Matt but when you start bringing the whole Ann Frank and holocaust issue into it thats a whole new ball game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2 hours ago, Chez said:

 

I really enjoy the current crop of TMS commentators. Isa Guha is excellent. Opinions, opinions...

So do I.    Once you get past the old beliefs that only blokes should commentate on Football or Cricket you realise how good the emerging talent and personality of Isa Guha and co are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Another new low for le tissier as he compares being asked to help contain and stop a virus with social measures and wearing a mask. To Anne Frank being hunted down because of her religion in WW2.

Is he, or is that your outraged interpretation of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Is he, or is that your outraged interpretation of it?

His name has been trending NO1 with anne frank now for over 2hrs on twitter and my timeline is full of Saints fans saying hes a disgrace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Is he, or is that your outraged interpretation of it?

What he’s trying to say, I think, is that the law isn’t always right. Maybe to highlight his point if he’d used a picture of Elizabeth Moss from The Handmades Tale, something that isn’t real life, he might have gotten away with it. As it is, sorry, but he hadn’t done himself any favours and for someone who I guess wants to carry on as a media personality he could find the offers dry up pretty quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, beatlesaint said:

What he’s trying to say, I think, is that the law isn’t always right. Maybe to highlight his point if he’d used a picture of Elizabeth Moss from The Handmades Tale, something that isn’t real life, he might have gotten away with it. As it is, sorry, but he hadn’t done himself any favours and for someone who I guess wants to carry on as a media personality he could find the offers dry up pretty quickly.

Looking at the ridicule up and down the country from football fans that said they respected him, but now think hes a dangerous crank is terrible to see.

I just cant believe how naive and thick he is.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})