Jump to content

Anti-Chelsea media


Recommended Posts

On 23/11/2020 at 16:30, Hessleboink said:

Outside of nature documentaries, BBC produces mostly complete crap anyway. All of their drama/fiction is shot and performed the same across each of their shows. It's like a really boring, niche genre, for people that can't be bothered to find anything original elsewhere.

Currently enjoying series 2 of His Dark Materials, been plenty of good quality shows away from documentaries coming out as the last year or two as they try to get people back from streaming services. 

I’ll happily pay the license fee just for PopMaster on Radio 2 everyday anyway :good2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I personally don't buy into the view that any media outlets are unfair to Chelsea but I do think that Sky and BT Sport have a bias towards Liverpool and United and anyone who thought about it for 2 seconds would agree.

BBC pundits are spread across the footballing world, Shearer, Linekar, Ian Wright, Jenas, Murphy, Keown, Nevin, Lawro, Alex Scott. 

Sky pundits are almost exclusively Liverpool and United (with the always token "other club" added in). Neville was the f**king co commentator when we played United. 

The reason is because those clubs are bigger than us and Sky and BT Sport are commercial outlets, they are paid to be biased. 

I wouldn't want to be a pundit, I could never mask my bias for Chelsea nor my absolute hatred for some other teams, if things didn’t go well during the game, the monitor would most likely be on the other side of the room and the desk turned over on top of the chair and as someone who can manage to say f**k 5 times in a four word sentence, if I ever were to be invited onto MOTD, it wouldn't be for long - so fair play to those that do it - and some, way better than others.

But the thing that gets my goat, especially with the BBC , is the smug, self righteous, PC, inoffensive carry on that I suspect is completely false in most cases and the guy most guilty of it - and there are many - is that prick Mark Chapman , what a f**king complete melt he is.

And Bonzodog, Janus is always a tit !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the f**k is the tv( tax, licence, enforced subscription, fee) all about when you don't watch it? If you want you pay for your preferred content, Sky, BT, Netflix, Amazon prime etc. you do, it's not enforced. Why the f**k should anyone pay for something they don't want. If you want to watch the crap they put out subscribe to it or let them self fund.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should lobby the BBC to commission a program along the lines of 

"John Terry - "Why have you not lip read any other player in the history of the game"" 

The most vilified player of all time, it is pretty disgraceful.  I would imagine the only reason he keeps quiet on the whole thing is he doesn't want to keep dragging it up, so if Ferdinand was so hurt by the incident why the hell is he dragging it up again.

Having said that I will contradict myself as i will watch it and I will keep an open mind until I have seen the whole program, there maybe very little relating to the incident. 

 

 

 

Edited by andy
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, andy said:

I think we should lobby the BBC to commission a program along the lines of 

"John Terry - "Why have you not lip read any other player in the history of the game"" 

The most vilified player of all time, it is pretty disgraceful.  I would imagine the only reason he keeps quiet on the whole thing is he doesn't want to keep dragging it up, so if Ferdinand was so hurt by the incident why the hell is he dragging it up again.

Having said that I will contradict myself as i will watch it and I will keep an open mind until I have seen the whole program, there maybe very little relating to the incident. 

The player look-back in 20 years,

John Terry, arguably best defender for a generation and won all the major tournaments barring national success.

Anton Ferdinand famous for slandering John Terry.

Who will leave the better legacy for the grandkids

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

bisright1 and Yorkley have it right. Anyone who believes the BBC is "lefty" is a brainwashed moron and TV quality would plummet almost immediately if the BBC was axed. The lack of a non-advertising competitor holding higher standards would cause all other channels to stuff their lineups with even more advertising with little attention to quality. As is so often the case, the "profit motive" would kill the quality of the industry.

The narrative around the Ferdinand JT case is skewed and the program will be a hatchet job whether it was made by the BBC, ITV, sky whoever.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC have an article up on the Ferdinand documentary 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55074804

 

It does seem to suggest that it is not about vilifying JT however clearly it will, which is a shame. 

It seems as feared it is about look how hurt "I" was by something I didn't even hear.

Highlighting the scourge of racism is great and clearly as so many other mixed race people in this country have suffered I support his actions, however if he was really serious about the subject rather than himself then he would have included JT in the program. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, andy said:

BBC have an article up on the Ferdinand documentary 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55074804

 

It does seem to suggest that it is not about vilifying JT however clearly it will, which is a shame. 

It seems as feared it is about look how hurt "I" was by something I didn't even hear.

Highlighting the scourge of racism is great and clearly as so many other mixed race people in this country have suffered I support his actions, however if he was really serious about the subject rather than himself then he would have included JT in the program. 

I read that JT was asked to appear in the doc but declined as he has moved on, sure when JT was desperate to make amends and apologise he closed him off at every turn but when you need him to turn up for your benefit you're all ears...

It's not appropriate to use JT as an example of racism anyway as the whole thing is muddy and he was cleared in a court of law so by all means he isn't a racist and can't be used in this way.

How come Rio's 'choc-ice' comment is never held against him, or Granit Xhaka for calling someone a white bitch at an airport? As if racism only applies one way.

Let's be honest the BBC have an agenda to push and Anton has a book to sell and that's why this is all being dug up again.

*And disclaimer I am neither white nor black so completely neutral views on this*

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/11/2020 at 16:20, sonic90 said:

I read that JT was asked to appear in the doc but declined as he has moved on, sure when JT was desperate to make amends and apologise he closed him off at every turn but when you need him to turn up for your benefit you're all ears...

It's not appropriate to use JT as an example of racism anyway as the whole thing is muddy and he was cleared in a court of law so by all means he isn't a racist and can't be used in this way.

How come Rio's 'choc-ice' comment is never held against him, or Granit Xhaka for calling someone a white bitch at an airport? As if racism only applies one way.

Let's be honest the BBC have an agenda to push and Anton has a book to sell and that's why this is all being dug up again.

*And disclaimer I am neither white nor black so completely neutral views on this*

He did the right thing, the BBC would've completely misrepresented him, we've seen them do this numerous times. 

Since the whole BLM stuff reenergised it's been a big selling point and all the main channels have been broadcasting it non stop. I fully agree though, Rio Ferdinand completely gets off with his past comment which was extremely bigoted towards Ashley Cole and just a racist comment in general. Even though, they are both mixed race individuals, it's still not appropriate. 

But I've noticed with Chelsea players or at least Terry they get this unfair treatement compared to other players. Ryan Giggs, what he did was 10 times worse than what Terry was ever accused of. And Ryan Giggs hit his wife recently, I barely even f**king heard about it, imagine if it was Terry?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else mind boggled by the fact Terry went to a criminal court (and then FA court lol) over something he allegedly said on the pitch during a game.....yet a Preston player who literally sexually assaults an opponent during the game...and clearly.....gets just the 3 match ban?

 

What are the priorities here?  What are the requirements for things to escalate to actual criminal behaviour?  Has anyone else during a PL game had to explain their actions in court?  Are words (allegedly said or otherwise) literally worse than actions now?  Would it still be nothing in terms of criminal consideration if a player did this to an official?  Even a female official such as Sian Massey?

 

This makes no sense to me, and for once I think my bias has nothing to do with it.  

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

He did the right thing, the BBC would've completely misrepresented him, we've seen them do this numerous times. 

Since the whole BLM stuff reenergised it's been a big selling point and all the main channels have been broadcasting it non stop. I fully agree though, Rio Ferdinand completely gets off with his past comment which was extremely bigoted towards Ashley Cole and just a racist comment in general. Even though, they are both mixed race individuals, it's still not appropriate. 

But I've noticed with Chelsea players or at least Terry they get this unfair treatement compared to other players. Ryan Giggs, what he did was 10 times worse than what Terry was ever accused of. And Ryan Giggs hit his wife recently, I barely even f**king heard about it, imagine if it was Terry?? 

I felt for Terry when we played City after the revelations about Terry and Bridges girlfriend / wife, almost every City player made a point of an over physical challenge on him which I don't recall being punished almost as though he had been tried and found guilty of being an adulterer based on a media based jury.

Then sometime later it was revealed at the time Bridge and his ex had already split up, it left a bad taste.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strider6003 said:

I felt for Terry when we played City after the revelations about Terry and Bridges girlfriend / wife, almost every City player made a point of an over physical challenge on him which I don't recall being punished almost as though he had been tried and found guilty of being an adulterer based on a media based jury.

Then sometime later it was revealed at the time Bridge and his ex had already split up, it left a bad taste.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because I'm quite fuzzy on the details. If Terry did what he did (there's still no evidence for that btw) and as bad as it was to his wife and his family, wasn't Bridge seperated from this person he allegedly slept with at the time? And as far as I know, Wayne has a reptuation from dating many women, he's had many girlfriends. 

Again, not condoning it, but I've always thought it was completely overblown by rivals and media alike. They did nothing but destroy his character, it's no wonder the poor bugger never had a social media like everyone else, he knows he would've got ripped in public for it. I've always felt Terry has faced much more scrutiny than most other players even if he is a flawed individual. Meanwhile again, Ryan Giggs, still gets this legend status thrown at him and hardly anything is ever mentioned from his activities. Not to mention the bloke is a nob head of the highest order, I met him once and he was an ignorant bell end, whereas whenever I've seen Terry on camera he's never behaved the way towards fans like Giggs has. 

It's just such a huge double standard, Wayne Rooney did much worse things than Terry did, and although he got abuse for it, he never received it to the level of Terry. For one, we know Wayne definitely cheated on his wife multiple times, we know Wayne has gotten into fights, we know Wayne has had DUI's. At least Terry it's complete allegations, nobody knows for sure if he was racist towards Anton, and nobody knows for sure if he committed adultery at the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2020 at 20:52, jack h said:

bisright1 and Yorkley have it right. Anyone who believes the BBC is "lefty" is a brainwashed moron and TV quality would plummet almost immediately if the BBC was axed. The lack of a non-advertising competitor holding higher standards would cause all other channels to stuff their lineups with even more advertising with little attention to quality. As is so often the case, the "profit motive" would kill the quality of the industry.

The narrative around the Ferdinand JT case is skewed and the program will be a hatchet job whether it was made by the BBC, ITV, sky whoever.

 

I couldn't give less of a damn about the BBC and I would be happy to see them fall if it meant I never had to pay the licence fee. Quality is subjective, and there is barely anything on the BBC that I find to be quality tv and nothing that makes me feel it is worth paying £157 a year for, not even MOTD, so I don't see why I should have to keep funding them. I mean, who's going to miss reruns of Bargain Hunt, Pointless and all of the other crap they show daily? I don't believe the quality of tv would plummet without the BBC when they aren't even producing quality tv themselves. From my point of view, I see nothing on the BBC that is any better than the rubbish I am seeing on any other channel.

I don't even watch much tv anymore and I think it's absurd that we need to pay a licence to watch any live tv at all. The only live tv I watch now is Football and a bit of Tennis if I can be bothered. The only Football I watch on the BBC is the World Cup and Euro's, and half of the games in those competitions are on ITV. With Tennis, it's the the slams, and only one of those tournaments are on the BBC. This is not worth £157 a year, especially when any other channel can pick these events up and do just as good a job as the BBC.

Tv has changed massively and the BBC doesn't have a future in it's current state. The average viewer of the BBC is in their mid 50's. Most 30's and under aren't watching the BBC anymore and kids and teens especially aren't watching it. When I was a kid, I would watch tv a lot, including the BBC, but my niece and nephews don't watch the BBC at all, they don't watch any tv from what I can see. They are on their tablets, phones and games consoles now. That isn't going to suddenly change when they get older. Things like Netfilx, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Youtube, Twitch and especially gaming is just a much better source of entertainment to this generation, and I am with them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2020 at 12:28, Hessleboink said:

They have to prove you're using it to watch live TV, which is almost impossible to do. You're allowed to have a TV without paying it. 

You need a licence to watch BBC iPlayer too, in fact I think it’s all BBC content, so their websites too, sport, news etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

I couldn't give less of a damn about the BBC and I would be happy to see them fall if it meant I never had to pay the licence fee. Quality is subjective, and there is barely anything on the BBC that I find to be quality tv and nothing that makes me feel it is worth paying £157 a year for, not even MOTD, so I don't see why I should have to keep funding them. I mean, who's going to miss reruns of Bargain Hunt, Pointless and all of the other crap they show daily? I don't believe the quality of tv would plummet without the BBC when they aren't even producing quality tv themselves. From my point of view, I see nothing on the BBC that is any better than the rubbish I am seeing on any other channel.

I don't even watch much tv anymore and I think it's absurd that we need to pay a licence to watch any live tv at all. The only live tv I watch now is Football and a bit of Tennis if I can be bothered. The only Football I watch on the BBC is the World Cup and Euro's, and half of the games in those competitions are on ITV. With Tennis, it's the the slams, and only one of those tournaments are on the BBC. This is not worth £157 a year, especially when any other channel can pick these events up and do just as good a job as the BBC.

Tv has changed massively and the BBC doesn't have a future in it's current state. The average viewer of the BBC is in their mid 50's. Most 30's and under aren't watching the BBC anymore and kids and teens especially aren't watching it. When I was a kid, I would watch tv a lot, including the BBC, but my niece and nephews don't watch the BBC at all, they don't watch any tv from what I can see. They are on their tablets, phones and games consoles now. That isn't going to suddenly change when they get older. Things like Netfilx, Amazon Prime, Disney+, Youtube, Twitch and especially gaming is just a much better source of entertainment to this generation, and I am with them. 

If the BBC goes, then we are one step away from all that wonderful sport you like to watch being behind a pay wall. It won't be on ITV or channel 4. A pay wall that will cost more than £13 a month. The olympics, fifa, uefa will all demand it because the commercial channels won't be able to afford the price based of adverts. A govt that is happy to throw away one of the most important parts of our culture isn't going to protect the sport.

That's what you don't understand about quality dropping. You think everything will stay the same except you will be £13 a month richer and the BBC will have some adverts. It just absolutely won't. News programmes will become worse, adverts will be more frequent, there will be more reality shows and repeats and suddenly the only good content will be behind increasingly more expensive paywalls.

I find it astounding that the same people who think netflix is worth £9 a month (a price that will increase of the BBC goes) don't think the BBC is worth £13. 

I would pay a 5er a month just to subscribe to the bloody website for news and sport, about the only website there is not plagued with adverts all over it.

Add in the radio, the rubbish tv that I enjoy - yes I like pointless and bargain hunt, then the actual news programmes and it's worth far more than that before you even talk about dramas, films, documentary's and the live sport. 

The BBC is worth £30+ a month for the content it produced. The reason it's so cheap is because by and large, we all have to pay it 

Edited by bisright1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/11/2020 at 16:56, Kev56 said:

What the f**k is the tv( tax, licence, enforced subscription, fee) all about when you don't watch it? If you want you pay for your preferred content, Sky, BT, Netflix, Amazon prime etc. you do, it's not enforced. Why the f**k should anyone pay for something they don't want. If you want to watch the crap they put out subscribe to it or let them self fund.

Well, some of us pay taxes for things we don't want. Nuclear weapons for one, and contracts worth billions to private contractors who are friends of the government.

Personally, just for Radio 6 music I don't mind.  Although the license fee enforcement is draconian maybe subscription for the fee and for nuclear weapons ? 

never mind come on you BLUES !

 

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

Correct me if I'm wrong here, because I'm quite fuzzy on the details. If Terry did what he did (there's still no evidence for that btw) and as bad as it was to his wife and his family, wasn't Bridge seperated from this person he allegedly slept with at the time? And as far as I know, Wayne has a reptuation from dating many women, he's had many girlfriends. 

Again, not condoning it, but I've always thought it was completely overblown by rivals and media alike. They did nothing but destroy his character, it's no wonder the poor bugger never had a social media like everyone else, he knows he would've got ripped in public for it. I've always felt Terry has faced much more scrutiny than most other players even if he is a flawed individual. Meanwhile again, Ryan Giggs, still gets this legend status thrown at him and hardly anything is ever mentioned from his activities. Not to mention the bloke is a nob head of the highest order, I met him once and he was an ignorant bell end, whereas whenever I've seen Terry on camera he's never behaved the way towards fans like Giggs has. 

It's just such a huge double standard, Wayne Rooney did much worse things than Terry did, and although he got abuse for it, he never received it to the level of Terry. For one, we know Wayne definitely cheated on his wife multiple times, we know Wayne has gotten into fights, we know Wayne has had DUI's. At least Terry it's complete allegations, nobody knows for sure if he was racist towards Anton, and nobody knows for sure if he committed adultery at the time. 

Yeah, Bridge had split up with her . Load of self righteous moralizing over it.

as for the racist thing, apparently it was in response to something Ferdinand said about Terry and Wayne wife.

who knows, again a load of fuss over nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, royce987 said:

People choose to sign up to Netflix, there is no compulsion. Comparing a voluntary subscription to a tax is stupid.  

I referenced netflix because scott harris said that netflix is better value and also I said in my post that the BBC was worth a lot more than we pay specifically because it is essentially a tax. 

We get much better value because it's a tax. If it was a subscription it would cost a lot more and we'd all suffer. 

Edited by bisright1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bisright1 said:

If the BBC goes, then we are one step away from all that wonderful sport you like to watch being behind a pay wall. It won't be on ITV or channel 4. A pay wall that will cost more than £13 a month. The olympics, fifa, uefa will all demand it because the commercial channels won't be able to afford the price based of adverts. A govt that is happy to throw away one of the most important parts of our culture isn't going to protect the sport.

That's what you don't understand about quality dropping. You think everything will stay the same except you will be £13 a month richer and the BBC will have some adverts. It just absolutely won't. News programmes will become worse, adverts will be more frequent, there will be more reality shows and repeats and suddenly the only good content will be behind increasingly more expensive paywalls.

I find it astounding that the same people who think netflix is worth £9 a month (a price that will increase of the BBC goes) don't think the BBC is worth £13. 

I would pay a 5er a month just to subscribe to the bloody website for news and sport, about the only website there is not plagued with adverts all over it.

Add in the radio, the rubbish tv that I enjoy - yes I like pointless and bargain hunt, then the actual news programmes and it's worth far more than that before you even talk about dramas, films, documentary's and the live sport. 

The BBC is worth £30+ a month for the content it produced. The reason it's so cheap is because by and large, we all have to pay it 

There is no guaratee at all that protected sporting events would be put behind a paywall if the tv licence was abolished. It may happen, it may not, there is no way of knowing, but I would be willing to gamble it if it meant I didn't have to pay the tv licence.

Again, quality is subjective. You say programmes will get worse and adverts will become more frequent, well I simply don't care. It couldn't get any worse than it already is from my point of view, so if it somehow did get even worse, then so be it, it makes no difference to me because I don't watch any of it anyway.

The BBC may be worth it for you, but the number of people that don't feel it is worth it is growing, and by 2027, I expect those numbers to be too large to ignore. 

Edited by Scott Harris
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

There is no guaratee at all that protected sporting events would be put behind a paywall if the tv licence was abolished. It may happen, it may not, there is no way of knowing, but I would be willing to gamble it if it meant I didn't have to pay the tv licence.

Again, quality is subjective. You say programmes will get worse and adverts will become more frequent, well I simply don't care. It couldn't get any worse than it already is from my point of view, so if it somehow did get even worse, then so be it, it makes no difference to me because I don't watch any of it anyway.

The BBC may be worth it for you, but the number of people that don't feel it is worth it is growing, and by 2027, I expect those numbers to be too large to ignore. 

I'd like to know what tv channels are better than the BBC. Netflix and Amazon are great to start with, but after a while it's content is pretty rubbish. as for the terrestrial channels , pure junk.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!