• jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Posted: **Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:36 pm**

curious as to how much pundits are paid and how they get the jobs on tv or radio,
deeney has about 10 different ones across numerous companies.
Is it just about influential agents?
Most of media is over represented by ex Arsenal which is unbearable, but BBC seem to adore them.
On the topic of MOTD, mark chappers chapman comes across as one of those that dont really like football, but has learned the jargon, he waffles nothingness each week, and his passion is really the deadly dull golf, american football and has a fondness for stats graphics similar to the horrific USA tripe.
There must be hundreds of ex players out there hoping to pick up scraps from television companies, but they never get a sniff.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:26 am**

A lot is controlled by agents -and it’s often who you know rather than what you know.
There’s no real need to have any insight, opinions on MOTD etc are scripted by the producers - but you do need to be able to read an autocue. Sky are slightly better as they give their pundits more leeway.
The solution is in your own hands - just press the FF button

Disagree about Chapman though

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:33 am**

LincsWoldsClaret wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:26 am
A lot is controlled by agents -and it’s often who you know rather than what you know.
There’s no real need to have any insight, opinions on MOTD etc are scripted by the producers - but you do need to be able to read an autocue. Sky are slightly better as they give their pundits more leeway.
The solution is in your own hands - just press the FF button

Disagree about Chapman though

That’s not true. My friend works on MOTD and the pundits put together their own segments of analysis.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:40 am**

Mark Chapman is definitely a proper football fan. I think he's excellent

I agree that most pundits are pointless. They don't add anything.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:41 am**

Roosterbooster wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:40 am
Mark Chapman is definitely a proper football fan. I think he's excellent

I agree that most pundits are pointless. They don't add anything.

Totally agree on Mark Chapman

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:55 am**

MotD running order:
Match 1
8 minutes nonsense
Match 2
7 minutes snore fest
Match 3
6 minutes waffle
Match 4+
5 minutes

I only watch it recorded and ff to within 30 seconds every time.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 9:47 am**

Was watching the City game yesterday and I'm sure at one point Gary Neville went on a droning monologue for about 2 mins during the game . It nearly put me to sleep.

Not really sure what has happened recently but across the BBC and Sky there are only a few pundits worth listening to.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:44 am**

I know this is meant to be more about pundits, but another here strongly defending Mark Chapman. He's excellent.

If Wile E Coyote perceives him to be disinterested in football, I can only surmise that this is a misconstrued take. Sure, he's very, very disillusioned about Manchester United (who wouldn't be) who he supports.

Not every one is perfect clearly (but at least he's actually from not a zillion miles away - Rochdale).

However, his all round passion for and knowledge of all other sports is unsurpassed by any other 'anchor', whether radio or television, past or present.

Now, as for some of the numpties who appear with him...... . Don't get me started.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 11:10 am**

I love it when Carragher goes on about titles races when the only one he was involved in, they throw a full season away in 13 minutes away at QPR

. **** off.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 12:24 pm**

Too many ex-Rovers for my liking

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 12:47 pm**

Daniel Sturridge said that City might bring Haaland on in the second half. David Jones had to inform him that Haaland wasn't on the subs bench.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:05 pm**

Mark Chapman’s major flaw is that he has no charisma. He’s dull.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:22 pm**

As we know, it's not about quality and knowledge, but about variety, identity and bias.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:27 pm**

dvalley69 wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:22 pm
As we know, it's not about quality and knowledge, but about variety, identity and bias.

In what way?

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:29 pm**

One of the most underrated pundits for me was/is James Richardson. Him on MOTD would have been class.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:29 pm**

ITV made a complete horlicks of the closing stages of the Calcutta Cup match on Saturday. They completely messed up coverage of a conversion attempt by Finn Russell to win the match in the 79th minute. Thankfully he missed and we beat the Sweaties by one point

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:29 pm**

I don't mind pundits giving a brief observation from a technical aspect,perhaps something only a professional could spot or be qualified to comment on,but when they drone on about the obvious that I could spot for example a great shot or save I just zone out.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:37 pm**

dvalley69 wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:22 pm
As we know, it's not about quality and knowledge, but about variety, identity and bias.

A relative of mine says things like this and loves to post 'box ticking' photos of his TV screen on social media. Strangely though, he remains quiet when MOTD have their regular line-up of Lineker, Shearer and Murphy.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:15 pm**

Wile E Coyote wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:36 pm
curious as to how much pundits are paid and how they get the jobs on tv or radio,
deeney has about 10 different ones across numerous companies.
Is it just about influential agents?
Most of media is over represented by ex Arsenal which is unbearable, but BBC seem to adore them.
On the topic of MOTD, mark chappers chapman comes across as one of those that dont really like football, but has learned the jargon, he waffles nothingness each week, and his passion is really the deadly dull golf, american football and has a fondness for stats graphics similar to the horrific USA tripe.
There must be hundreds of ex players out there hoping to pick up scraps from television companies, but they never get a sniff.

Have to agree about Chapman-not a patch on Linekar. I actually find Deeney very good and not surprised he is demand. The one that gets me is Ashley Williams-largely states the obvious and repeats a lot of what pundits have already said about certain clubs

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:19 pm**

Dyched wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 11:10 am
I love it when Carragher goes on about titles races when the only one he was involved in, they throw a full season away in 13 minutes away at QPR . **** off.

I think Jose Mourinho's appraisal of Carragher was brilliant

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:55 pm**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 1:27 pm
In what way?

In every way!

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 4:08 pm**

dvalley69 wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 3:55 pm
In every way!

That's very vague. What particularly makes you think that Shearer, Murphy and Shearer were selected to present and analyse Saturday's games on MOTD based on their variety, identity and bias?

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 4:59 pm**

Carragher and Neville both on over £1 million per year. That’s just their sky contract.

Most others circa 200k-300k

It is jobs for the boys and is a well paid gig.

I would be hard pressed to say that anyone is any good at it and certainly none of them are worth the money.

Really Bad Hinchcliffe, Sutton, Savage, Ashley Williams and Mike Dean

Bad are Sherwood, Merson, Morrison, Dawson, Owen, Keown, Alan Smith. Ian Wright, Dixon, Sturridge, Rednapp David James and Michael Owen.

Passable are Richards and Keane

The rest of them are meh.

We have created an industry for ex footballers to waffle on usually with a bias about a game that we love.

It isn’t hard to offer up opinions about a game, very rarely does anyone within a game offer anything that a regular football fan can not see.

A cull is definitely required.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:11 pm**

Find the sky pundits the most irritating, Merson, Morrison and Sherwood struggle to put a sentence together, the blonde woman (Sue whatever she's called) just agrees with whatever's been said, Jamie Redknapp's a total waste of time all he ever does is start a comment and part way through say "what do you think Paul (or whoever the other pundit is) and referee watch on Monday Mornings is a total embarrassment, Dermott Gallagher changes his opinions on a weekly basis, Stephen Warnock talks like he was the world's greatest player and the prat who presents it wants castrating with no anesthetic

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:13 pm**

Dion Dublin on Five Live yesterday thought Liverpool would win “by at least one goal”…..

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:17 pm**

For me the person who has impressed me the most is Nedum Onuoha. I also really like ex Burnley forward Ian Wright

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:20 pm**

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:13 pm
Dion Dublin on Five Live yesterday thought Liverpool would win “by at least one goal”…..

Every team, I have watched lately, have won by at least one goal! Amazing stat!

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:26 pm**

They seem to like Scottish pundits over here.......or Liverpudlian.
....think Stephen Warnock & George Burley...many others.
Lee Dixon..who i thought was ok at first (yrs back) is one of my least favourites........he's a legend in his own mind & its growing bigger by the game.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:35 pm**

It's if your face fits I'd like to see le tissier back at least he spoke his mind even if you didn't agree with him but somebody who hawked up some phlegm is more acceptable to come back into the fold.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:39 pm**

Wile E Coyote wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 23, 2025 11:36 pm
curious as to how much pundits are paid and how they get the jobs on tv or radio,
deeney has about 10 different ones across numerous companies.
Is it just about influential agents?
Most of media is over represented by ex Arsenal which is unbearable, but BBC seem to adore them.
On the topic of MOTD, mark chappers chapman comes across as one of those that dont really like football, but has learned the jargon, he waffles nothingness each week, and his passion is really the deadly dull golf, american football and has a fondness for stats graphics similar to the horrific USA tripe.
There must be hundreds of ex players out there hoping to pick up scraps from television companies, but they never get a sniff.

Mark Chapman's number 1 passion is football. He played to a decent level, including University first teams, and borderline semi pro. He's worked his whole career to get a top football job, and has decent knowledge, and an unbiased approach to the game.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:03 pm**

Personally I think Mark Chapman is excellent and particularly on the 2-hour Monday Night Club on Radio 5 where he is usually joined by the journalist Rory Smith (also excellent), Chris Sutton (I'm going to go against the grain and say I don't mind him and he isn't afraid of criticising when others might shy away from doing so) and a couple of guests. Andros Townsend has been one of the better guest pundits on there. Beyond this Danny Murphy and Roy Keane are the best I would say.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:51 pm**

Jakubs Tash wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:13 pm
Dion Dublin on Five Live yesterday thought Liverpool would win “by at least one goal”…..

Sounds like he knows his stuff then.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 6:55 pm**

I haven't watched MOTD for years due the pundits. Prefer the coverage that is produced for overseas. Much prefer Andy Townsend to the hyped up Neville and Carragher. Le Saux was on the other week, much reserved and easy on the ear.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 7:33 pm**

I'd put up with all the rest if they'd f**k Carragher off out of it!

His Unintelligible, indecipherable drivel in a thick over the top scouse accent is unbearable.

Maybe get rid of the fat laughing bag as well.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 7:36 pm**

MrTopTier wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 4:59 pm
Carragher and Neville both on over £1 million per year. That’s just their sky contract.

Most others circa 200k-300k

It is jobs for the boys and is a well paid gig.

I would be hard pressed to say that anyone is any good at it and certainly none of them are worth the money.

Really Bad Hinchcliffe, Sutton, Savage, Ashley Williams and Mike Dean

Bad are Sherwood, Merson, Morrison, Dawson, Owen, Keown, Alan Smith. Ian Wright, Dixon, Sturridge, Rednapp David James and Michael Owen.

Passable are Richards and Keane

The rest of them are meh.

We have created an industry for ex footballers to waffle on usually with a bias about a game that we love.

It isn’t hard to offer up opinions about a game, very rarely does anyone within a game offer anything that a regular football fan can not see.

A cull is definitely required.

You’re a mile off with those salary figures

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:03 pm**

Milltown1882 wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 7:36 pm
You’re a mile off with those salary figures

Got them off the Net so you’re probably right.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:24 pm**

Don Goodman is a prize weapon of a punditry ass, every time he commentates on our games he's overtly anti Burnley ............prime example was Friday night when at the end of the games he said " well that result doesn't reflect the game" . Can't stand the tool!

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:26 pm**

I don’t mind Don Goodman. Andy Hinchcliffe is a repetitive bore though.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:31 pm**

Murger wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:26 pm
I don’t mind Don Goodman. Andy Hinchcliffe is a repetitive bore though.

Hinchcliffe is a close second I must admit

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:38 pm**

louieollie wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:24 pm
Don Goodman is a prize weapon of a punditry ass, every time he commentates on our games he's overtly anti Burnley ............prime example was Friday night when at the end of the games he said " well that result doesn't reflect the game" . Can't stand the tool!

The result didn’t reflect the game. They should have scored at least 3 goals.
Why would it be anti Burnley to say something so obvious ?

I think Goodman is fine. Has more knowledge about the lower leagues than the vast majority of pundits and personally I think he’s been very fair and complimentary about Burnley when I’ve seen him.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 9:55 pm**

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:38 pm
The result didn’t reflect the game. They should have scored at least 3 goals.
Why would it be anti Burnley to say something so obvious ?

I think Goodman is fine. Has more knowledge about the lower leagues than the vast majority of pundits and personally I think he’s been very fair and complimentary about Burnley when I’ve seen him.

Totally disagree he's a cock imo

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 9:57 pm**

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:38 pm
The result didn’t reflect the game. They should have scored at least 3 goals.
Why would it be anti Burnley to say something so obvious ?

I think Goodman is fine. Has more knowledge about the lower leagues than the vast majority of pundits and personally I think he’s been very fair and complimentary about Burnley when I’ve seen him.

Should but didn't score three goals so therefore reflects the fact we won 4-0 ..............it's really THAT simple.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:15 pm**

Glenn Little should be on MOTD . I’d watch it just for him.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:22 pm**

Think it was Goodman that said something along the lines of Wednesday cannot live with the dynamism of Burnley. dynamism !

Having had to listen / watch the Sky coverage of the game tonight, it was all about the hostile environment pre agenda hype and 2 co commentators shouting about what’s happening in the moment alongside a commentator with a load of stats trying to glamourise the game.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:24 pm**

NL Claret wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:22 pm
Think it was Goodman that said something along the lines of Wednesday cannot live with the dynamism of Burnley. dynamism !

What’s wrong with the word dynamism?

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:28 pm**

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 5:35 pm
It's if your face fits I'd like to see le tissier back at least he spoke his mind even if you didn't agree with him but somebody who hawked up some phlegm is more acceptable to come back into the fold.

Le Tissier is no longer an ambassador at Southampton so I think we know why he was dropped.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:29 pm**

Big Vinny K wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 8:38 pm
The result didn’t reflect the game. They should have scored at least 3 goals.
Why would it be anti Burnley to say something so obvious ?

I think Goodman is fine. Has more knowledge about the lower leagues than the vast majority of pundits and personally I think he’s been very fair and complimentary about Burnley when I’ve seen him.

Goodman's not great but he's more tolerable than most.

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:40 pm**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:24 pm
What’s wrong with the word dynamism?

Nowt, it’s a word rarely used on here this season. Just saying that Goodman isn’t anti Burnley and in a thread last week some posters were unhappy about the positives said from fans of other clubs / commentators

Posted: **Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:42 pm**

NL Claret wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:40 pm
Nowt, it’s a word rarely used on here this season. Just saying that Goodman isn’t anti Burnley and in a thread last week some posters were unhappy about the positives said from fans of other clubs / commentators

Ah got you, yes agreed. Sky pundits are generally very complimentary about us and have been for our last few stints in the championship.

Posted: **Tue Feb 25, 2025 12:47 am**

ecc wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 24, 2025 10:28 pm
Le Tissier is no longer an ambassador at Southampton so I think we know why he was dropped.

I still think he's got a lot of offer. I think some of his views are by the by & that shouldn't stop him from doing some punditry. I'd have 1 of him to a thousand carraghers/Neville types purely on a footballing basis. His views on other subjects are neither here nor there.

jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.

Re: jobs for the boys , and poor punditry.