Soccer Saturday shakeup

KBslittlesis said:

Baffled by the Minto decision, truly baffled.
Not in anyway surprised Tommo & Charlie are out but why hasn’t Kammy gone too? As I personally think he’s been awful the last two seasons, like his hearts just not in it.

I have no issues with a refresh but this just seems to be pandering to an agenda.

Chunes said:

PaddyP17 said:

Chunes said:

SouthWest_Addicks said:

Chunes said:

PaddyP17 said:

If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show - 

Who do you mean?

I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option. 

I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?

My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.

But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.

For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.

Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).

I feel like it's probably the latter. I'm in that age group and the Soccer Saturday team seemed like a bunch of boring old farts to me. 

Re: your first bit, I guess you're saying that the audience is mostly white men so changing to women/ethnic minority pundits won't appeal to the audience? I wouldnt really agree that diversity only appeals to 'diverse' people. 

WelshAddick said:

I reckon he’s been sacked for Caroline Barker. She joined on the restart. Horrendous decision. 

Chunes said:

PaddyP17 said:

Chunes said:

PaddyP17 said:

Chunes said:

SouthWest_Addicks said:

Chunes said:

PaddyP17 said:

If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show - 

Who do you mean?

I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option. 

I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?

My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.

But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.

For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.

Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).

I feel like it's probably the latter. I'm in that age group and the Soccer Saturday team seemed like a bunch of boring old farts to me. 

Re: your first bit, I guess you're saying that the audience is mostly white men so changing to women/ethnic minority pundits won't appeal to the audience? I wouldnt really agree that diversity only appeals to 'diverse' people. 

That's a part of what I'm saying. I think people watch it for the banter. And removing three of the prime guys involved in said banter at once is a silly decision. 

I'm not saying diversity only appeals to diverse people at all. It's more that those who are watching won't really care about it and care more about what "the lads" bring to the table, and will be unhappy at the potentially sterile atmosphere from a lack of chemistry.

But there can be chemistry between people who aren't male and white, right? 

I think people are only aggrieved at the idea that three blokes have lost their jobs for the sake of diversity rather than the fact that the replacements won't be as good or won't gel together.

ForeverAddickted said:

bigstemarra said:

Garrymanilow said:

Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see

Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine?  Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say?  Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway.  You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob.  For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt.  These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.

Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions).  How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?

Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct.  He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months.  There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example.  However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out.  I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!

All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully.  It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.  

This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want.  The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries.  Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.

I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO.  But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism.  Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII?  Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit.  Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together.  When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them.  Slow hand clap.....

Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.

Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well

My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)

A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result

Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action

se9addick said:

Laddick01 said:

Clarkson, Hammond and May were probably not the best guys you could’ve picked to talk about cars. But Top Gear was still 100x better with them on it.

Think Sky have shot themselves in the foot. 

Lots thought the same when Keys & Gray left. 

ForeverAddickted said:

bigstemarra said:

Garrymanilow said:

Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see

Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine?  Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say?  Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway.  You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob.  For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt.  These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.

Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions).  How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?

Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct.  He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months.  There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example.  However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out.  I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!

All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully.  It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.  

This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want.  The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries.  Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.

I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO.  But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism.  Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII?  Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit.  Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together.  When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them.  Slow hand clap.....

Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.

Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well

My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)

A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result

Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action

Macronate said:

ForeverAddickted said:

bigstemarra said:

Garrymanilow said:

Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see

Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine?  Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say?  Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway.  You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob.  For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt.  These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.

Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions).  How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?

Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct.  He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months.  There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example.  However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out.  I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!

All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully.  It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.  

This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want.  The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries.  Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.

I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO.  But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism.  Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII?  Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit.  Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together.  When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them.  Slow hand clap.....

Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.

Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well

My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)

A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result

Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action

Sorry mate but I had to.

There's no way people like your wife should be allowed to express her own opinion about raising her own child in the way she thinks fit.

I've also just raised a complaint with the same manager about you coming on here and mouthing off about an issue that has nothing to do with you. Expect a letter from my lawyer shortly.