Quantcast
Slagging off Soccer Saturday - 3rd Jan edition - Page 7 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Redder Lurtz

Slagging off Soccer Saturday - 3rd Jan edition

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Grinch said:

Imaging arguing every pundit in the world is shite to justify jobs getting handed out to useless annoying cunts based on the colour of their skin. 

 

I suppose its an easier argument to make than Micah Richards deserves the job.   Since most people on here have been slaughtering him for months. 

I hope they get Bill Cosby out of jail and put him on there just to annoy you.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

I hope they get Bill Cosby out of jail and put him on there just to annoy you.

 

Hysterical. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand fully that racism through the decades has rightfully led to a battle for equal opportunities- no question at all. I dont understand that then, being selective based on race, as being the answer- isnt that just the same thing in reverse?   

 

In this instance we are talking about a panel of 4 people talking about football. The assumption is that recruitment has been based on race prior to this- the fact would seem it is going to be based on race going forward.

 

My take on equal opportunities is simply that- the best candidates win through regardless.

 

If colour of skin makes no difference then whats the issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dave D said:

I understand fully that racism through the decades has rightfully led to a battle for equal opportunities- no question at all. I dont understand that then, being selective based on race, as being the answer- isnt that just the same thing in reverse?   

 

In this instance we are talking about a panel of 4 people talking about football. The assumption is that recruitment has been based on race prior to this- the fact would seem it is going to be based on race going forward.

 

My take on equal opportunities is simply that- the best candidates win through regardless.

 

If colour of skin makes no difference then whats the issue? 

In many, normal, run of the mill roles it should be that way, but not for all. In some roles it is important to show diversity in order to encourage more people from diverse backgrounds to believe the opportunities exist to them, when without seeing “people like them” they may otherwise not believe it.

 

thats not racist. Ultimately, if there are no people other than white males qualified to do the job, then nobody would expect the job to be given to anyone other than a white male, but as this role is not based on being qualified, but being able to show aptitude for the role, then it is reasonable to seek to have diversity across the panel, whether that means skin colour or gender or both.

Share this post


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

In many, normal, run of the mill roles it should be that way, but not for all. In some roles it is important to show diversity in order to encourage more people from diverse backgrounds to believe the opportunities exist to them, when without seeing “people like them” they may otherwise not believe it.

 

thats not racist. Ultimately, if there are no people other than white males qualified to do the job, then nobody would expect the job to be given to anyone other than a white male, but as this role is not based on being qualified, but being able to show aptitude for the role, then it is reasonable to seek to have diversity across the panel, whether that means skin colour or gender or both.

I thought they got the pundits in based on their experience of winning major trophies? Wether you like them or not, Alan Smith, Nicholas, Merson and Thompson, in particular, have all won major trophies. Le Tissier was more of a Sky generation favourite. Less said about Minto the better.

Share this post


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

In many, normal, run of the mill roles it should be that way, but not for all. In some roles it is important to show diversity in order to encourage more people from diverse backgrounds to believe the opportunities exist to them, when without seeing “people like them” they may otherwise not believe it.

 

thats not racist. Ultimately, if there are no people other than white males qualified to do the job, then nobody would expect the job to be given to anyone other than a white male, but as this role is not based on being qualified, but being able to show aptitude for the role, then it is reasonable to seek to have diversity across the panel, whether that means skin colour or gender or both.

We are talking Sky Sports, I appreciate- but its not exclusive. The same message is being brought across a whole range of employment, particularly in the public eye It just seems backward to rightly decry lack of equal and fair opportunity for so long to then remedy it with a diluted version of the same thing.

 

Racism in all its forms is abhorrent to me   

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Micah Richards as a pundit. I like Paul Merson too. They seem like decent enough fellas (Merson was brilliant on Carra's podcast).

 

I think people get far too worked up about this stuff in general. I genuinely don't get how anyone can actively dislike Richards. I see how some might find him a bit irritating, but there's nothing snide about him. He's completely harmless, as is Merson.  

 

The only ones who I actively dislike are complete twats like Matt Le Tissier and (to a lesser extent) Alan Smith.

 

I don't really care who Soccer Saturday hire as I rarely watch it. The BT equivalent is much more diverse but it's not very good, despite the best efforts of Chris Sutton and his Partridgeisms.

 

Mind you, getting rid of Peter Walton would improve it by about 80%.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Mind you, getting rid of Peter Walton would improve it by about 80%.

 

If any of the current refs were of that opinion, Walton would 100% side with them.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I like Micah Richards as a pundit. I like Paul Merson too. They seem like decent enough fellas (Merson was brilliant on Carra's podcast).

 

I think people get far too worked up about this stuff in general. I genuinely don't get how anyone can actively dislike Richards. I see how some might find him a bit irritating, but there's nothing snide about him. He's completely harmless, as is Merson.  

 

The only ones who I actively dislike are complete twats like Matt Le Tissier and (to a lesser extent) Alan Smith.

 

I don't really care who Soccer Saturday hire as I rarely watch it. The BT equivalent is much more diverse but it's not very good, despite the best efforts of Chris Sutton and his Partridgeisms.

 

Mind you, getting rid of Peter Walton would improve it by about 80%.

There are a lot of people that watch the show that are not the sharpest tool in the box so maybe they relate to Merson. He is likeable, honest, holds no grudges towards any clubs or people and likes good football. As you say he is a helluva lot better than Le Tissier who seems to have an agenda. 

I hope they get a more diverse panel. The more representative all walks of life are, the easier society adjusts to change. I just hope sky don't hire untalented or dislikeable diverse people and defeat the purpose and we will all know that he/she got the job because is they are black/female/gay etc. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I like Micah Richards as a pundit. I like Paul Merson too. They seem like decent enough fellas (Merson was brilliant on Carra's podcast).

 

I think people get far too worked up about this stuff in general. I genuinely don't get how anyone can actively dislike Richards. I see how some might find him a bit irritating, but there's nothing snide about him. He's completely harmless, as is Merson.  

 

The only ones who I actively dislike are complete twats like Matt Le Tissier and (to a lesser extent) Alan Smith.

 

I don't really care who Soccer Saturday hire as I rarely watch it. The BT equivalent is much more diverse but it's not very good, despite the best efforts of Chris Sutton and his Partridgeisms.

 

Mind you, getting rid of Peter Walton would improve it by about 80%.

I don’t like Richards.  It’s 100% to do with him being City’s Sky spokesman to be fair.  We get enough pundits dancing around their shenanigans without having an actual official cunt from them just reading the party line to us.  He’s another poor footballer who’s career got worse and worse as he put less and less effort in.  Other Carragher and Neville the majority of the new age of pundits though is this standard of footballer.  It’s probably because of their generation they all made so much money none of them can be arsed.  They might turn up for a big gig like the champions league on BT or big games on a Sunday but they don’t want to be sitting in a studio for 5 hours every Saturday.  I think going forward Soccer Saturday will be full of knobheads like Richards anyway.

 

My main problem on the pundits thing though is the women.  It sounds as misogynistic as you can get but the reality is they haven’t played any remotely high standard of football.  The dynamics in a female dressing room will be completely different along with the standard of management.  They’re bringing absolutely nothing to the table.  I know quite a few girls who are into footy and I can talk to them as much as I can talk to any of the lads about it.  Any of them could do the same job as Alex Scott or Sue Smith because they can just give opinions like anyone else.  They just carry absolutely no weight whatsoever when they’re sat next to Souness, Neville or Keane.  It’s great when they disagree with each other because it’s interesting but would feel like bullying if Scott actually disagreed with what they said (which I don’t think she has ever done anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BeefStroganoff said:

Seeing as you have the mental capacity of a 7 year old I will spell it out to you.

 

1. I suggested that the panel will be replaced by a more diverse representation based upon current events

 

2. You argued that didn't exist

 

3. I told you it did and has been a part of the social climate for years, even experiencing it for myself through work

 

4. Then you said I'm moaning about representation (?) and don't know what I'm talking about

 

5. You're still a fucking idiot.

1

I argued that the panel probably won't be all white, if selected on ability alone, because of the demographic make-up of the pool of potential candidates. 

I also argued that numpties and nobheads will misattribute this to whatever the fashionable terminology for "PC gone mad" is.

 

2

The new panel doesn’t exist.

I never anticipated that numpties and nobheads would lose their shit before the new panel came into existence. 

 

3

You went on a rant against fair representation on the BBC. You then simultaneously denied you were moaning and doubled-down on your moaning. Impressive. 

 

4.

I know what I said. I wrote it.

 

5.

That's just rude.

 

You still haven't explained why you've got a problem with a black person potentially appearing on the new Sky panel and why you refuse to acknowledge that he or she could be there on merit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BeefStroganoff said:

Im arguing that creating a scenario whereas you exclude someone because of their skin colour in order to make things more representative isn't the solution to the problem.

 

Whether I'm told to replace someone in my work because of the colour of their skin or the Athletic to open up a specific job opportunity to a BAME applicant, is not representation, its racism.

 

Thats the fucking point. It doesn't matter if you are white, black, green or fucking covered in polka dots, excluding someone based on their skin is racist. So ill ask, are you ok with that?

No white people are being excluded on the basis of their skin colour.  That's a favourite myth of paranoid racists.

 

Do you accept the possibility that a black person can get a job on merit?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave D said:

I understand fully that racism through the decades has rightfully led to a battle for equal opportunities- no question at all. I dont understand that then, being selective based on race, as being the answer- isnt that just the same thing in reverse?   

 

In this instance we are talking about a panel of 4 people talking about football. The assumption is that recruitment has been based on race prior to this- the fact would seem it is going to be based on race going forward.

 

My take on equal opportunities is simply that- the best candidates win through regardless.

 

If colour of skin makes no difference then whats the issue? 

Literally nobody  - apart from foam-flecked racist loons - is suggesting that a black person could get this job simply for being black.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Grinch said:

Thankfully this pathetic piece of virtue signalling is going to show in the viewer ratings.  

People who use the term ‘virtue signalling’ (usually the same who say ‘snowflake’ and ‘sjw’)are almost always nobheads who’s opinions stop mattering the moment they use the term.

 

There’s a point some people obsessed with skin colour seem to be missing. It’s not about ticking boxes, it’s not necessarily about having the best for the job. A black mans experience of playing professional football is different from a white mans, a woman’s experience is even more so. Representation offers more than a different palette of people to look at it offers a richer wider pool of opinions and experiences. Sure a few duds like Richards might get opportunities that their talent doesn’t permit but in the long run it’ll mean people with the talent who wouldn’t usually be driven to pursue a career in sports media will see people like them given opportunities that previously didn’t exist and be encouraged to give it a go too.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to weigh in on this as others have covered what I think. But then I saw this on Twitter, with black people telling the late Chadwick Boseman, without knowing he was behind the curtain, what Black Panther and the representation of people who looked like them on screen meant to them:

 

 

This then brought back a memory of a story of a mother saying how Mo Salah had made her son proud to let his hair grow out rather than trying to conceal his afro in front of his white friends. With all that in mind, fuck @BeefStroganoff and @Grinch who are not only bigots but snides who won't own their bigotry.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been offered one of the spots! Apparently they're going with a miserable fat cunt who'll predict Liverpool will lose every week!

 

I don't want Richards to get the job as he's a shit pundit and a City fan boy! The less he's on screen the better!

 

Otherwise who really cares? I'd put Alex Scott on but only because she's fit, she's not a good pundit though!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I wasn't going to weigh in on this as others have covered what I think. But then I saw this on Twitter, with black people telling the late Chadwick Boseman, without knowing he was behind the curtain, what Black Panther and the representation of people who looked like them on screen meant to them:

 

 

This then brought back a memory of a story of a mother saying how Mo Salah had made her son proud to let his hair grow out rather than trying to conceal his afro in front of his white friends. With all that in mind, fuck @BeefStroganoff and @Grinch who are not only bigots but snides who won't own their bigotry.

Oh im a bigot am i? And you know that exactly how? Because some kids said they had heroes who where Black? One of mine is John Barnes. Actually I love the Marvel films and actually have a statue of Chadwick Boseman on the shelf as Black Panther. Go figure.

 

I'd say, its gobshites like you that are part of the problem. Judgemental, dismissive no marks who don't have the ability to have a conversation and who, in the age of social media decide who the bad guys are based off absolutely fucking zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BeefStroganoff said:

Oh im a bigot am i? And you know that exactly how? Because some kids said they had heroes who where Black? One of mine is John Barnes. Actually I love the Marvel films and actually have a statue of Chadwick Boseman on the shelf as Black Panther. Go figure.

 

I'd say, its gobshites like you that are part of the problem. Judgemental, dismissive no marks who don't have the ability to have a conversation and who, in the age of social media decide who the bad guys are based off absolutely fucking zero.

Is it a statue or a figure ? 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

No white people are being excluded on the basis of their skin colour.  That's a favourite myth of paranoid racists.

 

Do you accept the possibility that a black person can get a job on merit?

Myth? Where do you work exactly? Again i'll ask the question have you been living under a fucking rock? Theres been job roles created specifically for people of a certain skin colour, the athletic was one example a few months back advertised by Pearce, i personally know of comic and book authors who have specifically asked for people of colour and LGBT only to apply for roles they have set up. The BBC themselves hire according to a diversity charter based upon quotas. I fucking know because I have been dealing with them for years.

 

I have zero problems with hiring the right person for the right role. What i do have a problem with, and as @Dave D so excellently put it, is readdressing the balance by using the same tactic as the root problem, it doesnt solve the problem, long term, it just creates further ill will. Thats my point.

 

Anyway I'm not continuing this with you further, you were problematic in the other thread, totally adamant that we live in a racist UK and dismissing the socio-economic problems that are a driver for most of this. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×