Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How do you complain to ITV about their football coverage?
Comments
-
Yeah, but what about The People's Democratic Republic of the Congo?5
-
Never would I have expected ITV to deliver better coverage than the BBC.4
-
Not sure, I'm more interested to know if they still drink Um Bongo there?Gribbo said:Is there any reason why this commentator can't just say Congo instead of DR Congo every time he mentions them?10 -
Don't know what you're all moaning about?
The Emma Hayes section was a refreshing change.6 -
This thread seems to me like it's appeared at exactly the wrong time.
ITV's studio and pundits in this tournament are the best they've ever been.2 -
and their children, and their children's childrenStig said:Yeah, but what about The People's Democratic Republic of the Congo?1 -
I have no clue how the BBC have got their coverage so wrong. I honestly cant bear to watch their build up pre match and then the post match stuff. The pundits that they have are soooo boring and can not string a sentence together without countless "urms" between every second word. Im not a major fan of Neville etc but they are streets ahead in terms of presentation and entertainment1
-
Probably helps that Keane, Neville and Wrighty already do a lot together and have got good chemistry between them.AndyG said:I have no clue how the BBC have got their coverage so wrong. I honestly cant bear to watch their build up pre match and then the post match stuff. The pundits that they have are soooo boring and can not string a sentence together without countless "urms" between every second word. Im not a major fan of Neville etc but they are streets ahead in terms of presentation and entertainment
As opposed to the BBC putting different randoms on there and monotone Murphy.2 -
Totally agree mate but you would have thought that whoever in the BBC has made the decision to appoint their coverage team would have maybe looked beyond the "ex footballer" requirement and put some degree on having the ability to actually speak and have a modicum of media delivery skill. IMO for what is supposed to be our blue ribbon channel they have really second rate coverageCaptainRobbo said:
Probably helps that Keane, Neville and Wrighty already do a lot together and have got good chemistry between them.AndyG said:I have no clue how the BBC have got their coverage so wrong. I honestly cant bear to watch their build up pre match and then the post match stuff. The pundits that they have are soooo boring and can not string a sentence together without countless "urms" between every second word. Im not a major fan of Neville etc but they are streets ahead in terms of presentation and entertainment
As opposed to the BBC putting different randoms on there and monotone Murphy.0 -
Be thankful you don’t have to listen to James Maclean and his political posturing.
Makes Giroud sound like a university professor 😩2 -
Sponsored links:
-
Ian Wright often does the jobgolfaddick said:Funny that I've never seen a male pundit during the women's matches.
Sexism still exists .3 -
.0
-
or they’re making it up to suit their prejudice.Garrymanilow said:
Famously, for years. Jonas Eidevall was also a pundit at the 2022 Euros and 2023 World Cup. Nedum Onuoha was one of the pundits alongside Wright for the Euro 2025 final. If someone has never seen a male pundit during the women's matches then they haven't been paying much attentionshirty5 said:
Ian Wrightgolfaddick said:Funny that I've never seen a male pundit during the women's matches.
Sexism still exists .0 -
Macronate said:Emma Hayes utilising a chalk board for her hydration break analysis of Spain v Cape Verde was entertaining, innovative and must have blown most of the ITV WC punditry budget.
6 -
"Is that a pie I can smell burning in the oven.tangoflash said:Macronate said:Emma Hayes utilising a chalk board for her hydration break analysis of Spain v Cape Verde was entertaining, innovative and must have blown most of the ITV WC punditry budget.
Sort it out Emma, Keano is hungry"1 -
I said exactly this to the missus a couple of days before when the lady off talksport was in that bit.tangoflash said:Macronate said:Emma Hayes utilising a chalk board for her hydration break analysis of Spain v Cape Verde was entertaining, innovative and must have blown most of the ITV WC punditry budget.I’m sure Toby will have seen these memes already..My missus didn’t hear me though, I expect she was hoovering or summink….1 -
I hope Emma gets to see these - I’m sure she’d see the funny side…tangoflash said:Macronate said:Emma Hayes utilising a chalk board for her hydration break analysis of Spain v Cape Verde was entertaining, innovative and must have blown most of the ITV WC punditry budget.0 -
So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.4 -
It's called the 'off switch'.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Almost as if one is funded with public tax money and another isnt?Off_it said:So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.0 -
Even people who don't own TVs pay for ITV.Radostanradical said:
Almost as if one is funded with public tax money and another isnt?Off_it said:So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.1 -
Nope, you've lost me there old fruit. I think you're just confirming the point I was making, but I don't suppose that's what you meant.Radostanradical said:
Almost as if one is funded with public tax money and another isnt?Off_it said:So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.0 -
Thats incorrect, no tax payer money goes to ITV. They are a private organisation that operates on as a PLC on stock exchange. ITV is a commercial broadcaster funded by advertising, ITV Studios revenue, and subscriptions, not by public taxation. Why do you think people who dont own TVs pay for ITV?Algarveaddick said:
Even people who don't own TVs pay for ITV.Radostanradical said:
Almost as if one is funded with public tax money and another isnt?Off_it said:So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.
The closest they get to any public money is they have to comply with UK public broadcasting rules which is maintained by a body under the UK government but that would be like saying waitrose is tax payer finded because they have to comply with home office rules.0 -
That poor planning with private money for a private business is embarrassing but not a waste of tax payer funding. If the BBC did that it would be a waste of tax payer cash.Off_it said:
Nope, you've lost me there old fruit. I think you're just confirming the point I was making, but I don't suppose that's what you meant.Radostanradical said:
Almost as if one is funded with public tax money and another isnt?Off_it said:So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.
Like if a private business in central london wishes to pay its cleaners £50k+ a year, to me seems foolish but a priavte business can do as they wish, however if i found out my local council was doing it (if i lived in the UK that is) id be concerned about how my tax money is being spent.0 -
I think ITV benefits from the BBC in that they would have less advertising revenue if the BBC started showing adverts. And ITV is also a major gambling racket to boot.0
-
I took algarve's comment to mean that ITV is funded by advertising, which is built into the price of goods and services that people buy.Radostanradical said:
Thats incorrect, no tax payer money goes to ITV. They are a private organisation that operates on as a PLC on stock exchange. ITV is a commercial broadcaster funded by advertising, ITV Studios revenue, and subscriptions, not by public taxation. Why do you think people who dont own TVs pay for ITV?Algarveaddick said:
Even people who don't own TVs pay for ITV.Radostanradical said:
Almost as if one is funded with public tax money and another isnt?Off_it said:So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.
The closest they get to any public money is they have to comply with UK public broadcasting rules which is maintained by a body under the UK government but that would be like saying waitrose is tax payer finded because they have to comply with home office rules.5 -
Then literally everything is tax payer funded in the UK if thats how we choice to define it.IdleHans said:
I took algarve's comment to mean that ITV is funded by advertising, which is built into the price of goods and services that people buy.Radostanradical said:
Thats incorrect, no tax payer money goes to ITV. They are a private organisation that operates on as a PLC on stock exchange. ITV is a commercial broadcaster funded by advertising, ITV Studios revenue, and subscriptions, not by public taxation. Why do you think people who dont own TVs pay for ITV?Algarveaddick said:
Even people who don't own TVs pay for ITV.Radostanradical said:
Almost as if one is funded with public tax money and another isnt?Off_it said:So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.
The closest they get to any public money is they have to comply with UK public broadcasting rules which is maintained by a body under the UK government but that would be like saying waitrose is tax payer finded because they have to comply with home office rules.0 -
Err, again, that was kinda my point!Radostanradical said:
That poor planning with private money for a private business is embarrassing but not a waste of tax payer funding. If the BBC did that it would be a waste of tax payer cash.Off_it said:
Nope, you've lost me there old fruit. I think you're just confirming the point I was making, but I don't suppose that's what you meant.Radostanradical said:
Almost as if one is funded with public tax money and another isnt?Off_it said:So ITV have shelled out a shed load for their sooper dooper studio, but they've now had to relocate to a cupboard because of the wind!
Imagine the uproar if that was the BBC.
Like if a private business in central london wishes to pay its cleaners £50k+ a year, to me seems foolish but a priavte business can do as they wish, however if i found out my local council was doing it (if i lived in the UK that is) id be concerned about how my tax money is being spent.
Some people (generally) have been having a pop at the BBCs "green screen" (it's not) studio in Salford and comparing it unfavourably to ITVs studio.
If the BBC had spunked that sort of money and had to relocate to a broom cupboard there would've been outrage. But they didn't, so there wasn't - at least not on that particular point.
Hope we're all clear now, hun. Xxx0
