BT Sport

[jimmygrimblesboots]

If you look at it from City's point of view, and only from City's point of view, there may be some validity in what you say. BT may think it's quite acceptable to act as though it's audience is actually a small club of members who pay a subscription to have a dig at a rival. If this is the case it should not be a surprise to Simon Green. Their audience is, however, nothing of the kind. It became apparent that the audience for BT matches is small and getting smaller, especially for CL matches compared to viewing figures last season. And many of those most vehement in their complaints were not (at least claimed not to be) City fans at all, but English people outraged that the coverage of the last English team in the CL included a Frenchman who was an ex-PSG player, to tell us why PSG would win and to support the French team and an Englishman who admitted freely he was hoping the English team would lose. The presenter then admitted it was hard to get their "expert analyst" to utter one word of praise for an English team which had progressed two rounds at least further than any other English team. Simon Green should go, not because he doesn't support City, not because he doesn't insist that we don't come in for criticism but for the simple reason that he is responsible for a channel which takes subscriptions from viewers and then doesn't even ensure basic editorial standards. The presenter was not up to the task, the expert analysts were never going to be objective and that was obvious to anyone and everyone, but Jake Humphrey was so spineless that he allowed a programme to degenerate minute by minute to its nadir when those analysts were invited to insult those who had paid for tickets for the match rather than for BT's coverage and this managed to insult the patriotism of all those watching. Great television. Well done Simon. Rio Ferdinand, ex-England international.

In a nutshell , brilliant post.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

If you look at it from City's point of view, and only from City's point of view, there may be some validity in what you say. BT may think it's quite acceptable to act as though it's audience is actually a small club of members who pay a subscription to have a dig at a rival. If this is the case it should not be a surprise to Simon Green. Their audience is, however, nothing of the kind. It became apparent that the audience for BT matches is small and getting smaller, especially for CL matches compared to viewing figures last season. And many of those most vehement in their complaints were not (at least claimed not to be) City fans at all, but English people outraged that the coverage of the last English team in the CL included a Frenchman who was an ex-PSG player, to tell us why PSG would win and to support the French team and an Englishman who admitted freely he was hoping the English team would lose. The presenter then admitted it was hard to get their "expert analyst" to utter one word of praise for an English team which had progressed two rounds at least further than any other English team. Simon Green should go, not because he doesn't support City, not because he doesn't insist that we don't come in for criticism but for the simple reason that he is responsible for a channel which takes subscriptions from viewers and then doesn't even ensure basic editorial standards. The presenter was not up to the task, the expert analysts were never going to be objective and that was obvious to anyone and everyone, but Jake Humphrey was so spineless that he allowed a programme to degenerate minute by minute to its nadir when those analysts were invited to insult those who had paid for tickets for the match rather than for BT's coverage and this managed to insult the patriotism of all those watching. Great television. Well done Simon. Rio Ferdinand, ex-England international.

I can see what you're saying, but would repeat that I don't know who chose the pundits for the year - it might have been someone other than Green. It looks to me that they bet the farm on their chosen ones, and struggle to change gear when needed. This is a clear cockup, and I'm sure there will be a review internally not least on producer directive to the panel, but I just don't see any real point in saying people should go.

I was fine with GInola as a pundit in principle, but he was allowed to ramble and shout excitedly.

Humphrey's comment about Ferdinand was the day after, and I do think it was meant to be a joke, just badly conducted. That does show a lack of awareness in the entire team about how they may be perceived. It doesn't help that Humphrey is, as you say, spineless and up himself. Lineker at least looks embarrassed by the Ferdinand waffle.

What I want is an insightful (and thus not inciteful) panel, whoever they are, who can pick interesting things out from the match, and not just parrot Talksport-level wisdom. Going after individuals is Ferguson-tactics where anyone you don't like is banned/bullied. I hope the club are more pro-active than publically visible (difficult not to be), but I don't want to be the playground bully.

 

[Alan Oakes Shinpads]

Perhaps BT should look at the excellent commentary/punditry on the Premiership Rugby games.

No bias, despite their playing careers,just insightful analysis, pointing out things that the ordinary viewer would miss , and explaining them in an easy to understand way.

Same with the European Football show , informed journalists who speak clearly and honestly about what they see and what they have heard

 

[BobKowalski]

I can see what you're saying, but would repeat that I don't know who chose the pundits for the year - it might have been someone other than Green. It looks to me that they bet the farm on their chosen ones, and struggle to change gear when needed. This is a clear cockup, and I'm sure there will be a review internally not least on producer directive to the panel, but I just don't see any real point in saying people should go.

I was fine with GInola as a pundit in principle, but he was allowed to ramble and shout excitedly.

Humphrey's comment about Ferdinand was the day after, and I do think it was meant to be a joke, just badly conducted. That does show a lack of awareness in the entire team about how they may be perceived. It doesn't help that Humphrey is, as you say, spineless and up himself. Lineker at least looks embarrassed by the Ferdinand waffle.

What I want is an insightful (and thus not inciteful) panel, whoever they are, who can pick interesting things out from the match, and not just parrot Talksport-level wisdom. Going after individuals is Ferguson-tactics where anyone you don't like is banned/bullied. I hope the club are more pro-active than publically visible (difficult not to be), but I don't want to be the playground bully.

It is always more cock up than conspiracy and I would tend to agree that with ManU back in the comp coupled with a relatively easy group betting on a Ferdinand and Scholes studio combo alongside the usual suspects made sense to them. The fact we have pissed on their chips is one of the season highlights for me (yeah I know real mature but fuck it. It's hilarious) however it's the failure to adapt and change gears that has sunk them.

There was no reason why Ferdinand et al could not have a G Neville or a Souness and parked their bias at the door and gone with with actually professional analysis and embraced our games rather than the, at best, begrudging nit picking. And irrespective of whether you are a City fan or not it's frankly unwatchable and Lineaker looks like he can't wait for the show to end so he can get out of there. Leaving aside our own legitimate grievances the current format is dying on its feet.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Unfortunately I expect wio scholes and others are on a year contract being paid a retainer to be pundits of their coverage probably because they justify it with they have champions league experience. Consequently at this stage they won't want to pay twice with new punters. Sorry but the rest of the country won't really remember Lakey! And having monopolised the champions league by paying a fortune want big names. I know they are horrible but they are big names.

The coverage is poor and the pundits poor. The bigger issue is the monopoly of the champions league on a minnow channel means it gets little coverage on other channels, itv used to be big on champions league and as terrestrial it was beamed into the homes of everyone in the uk. Equally when on sky as well as itv the competition got significant coverage on those channels esp sky sports news. It was a big thing.

It gets really very little coverage now on those channels and the coverage on bt is awful. Pundits, camera angles , analysis . Just the whole competition does not get the profile it should. Consequently if this continues fans will switch off from the competition altogether. City fans have not always embraced Europe like others and I do worry that relegating such an important competition to bt will have significant affects on the popularity with fans. Clubs will still love it because of the global appeal and money but let's face it if God forbid city don't get 4th or above are you really going to give two shits about th champions league and certainly not enough to pay the monthly subscription.

 

[prof-taf]

Perhaps BT should look at the excellent commentary/punditry on the Premiership Rugby games.

No bias, despite their playing careers,just insightful analysis, pointing out things that the ordinary viewer would miss , and explaining them in an easy to understand way.

Same with the European Football show , informed journalists who speak clearly and honestly about what they see and what they have heard

Have to say, with 2 teenage boys playing representative rugby, I have become a bit of s follower of the rugby game and you are spot on about the commentators. They commentate, not opinionate. Very refreshing after watching the clowns who do football.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Unfortunately I expect wio scholes and others are on a year contract being paid a retainer to be pundits of their coverage probably because they justify it with they have champions league experience. Consequently at this stage they won't want to pay twice with new punters. Sorry but the rest of the country won't really remember Lakey! And having monopolised the champions league by paying a fortune want big names. I know they are horrible but they are big names.

The coverage is poor and the pundits poor. The bigger issue is the monopoly of the champions league on a minnow channel means it gets little coverage on other channels, itv used to be big on champions league and as terrestrial it was beamed into the homes of everyone in the uk. Equally when on sky as well as itv the competition got significant coverage on those channels esp sky sports news. It was a big thing.

It gets really very little coverage now on those channels and the coverage on bt is awful. Pundits, camera angles , analysis . Just the whole competition does not get the profile it should. Consequently if this continues fans will switch off from the competition altogether. City fans have not always embraced Europe like others and I do worry that relegating such an important competition to bt will have significant affects on the popularity with fans. Clubs will still love it because of the global appeal and money but let's face it if God forbid city don't get 4th or above are you really going to give two shits about th champions league and certainly not enough to pay the monthly subscription.

There is a danger that the viewing figures will fall away and BT will put it down to it being City in the competition and not a more 'traditional' big club. That would completely overlook the horrendous coverage they have produced. I hope some BT execs read through this and go back and look at the coverage again having read through these pages. They have made such a mess of this it's unreal its almost like they have tried to belittle the competition and the teams involved even though they have paid a ridiculous figure to cover it!

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Unfortunately I expect wio scholes and others are on a year contract being paid a retainer to be pundits of their coverage probably because they justify it with they have champions league experience. Consequently at this stage they won't want to pay twice with new punters. Sorry but the rest of the country won't really remember Lakey! And having monopolised the champions league by paying a fortune want big names. I know they are horrible but they are big names.

The coverage is poor and the pundits poor. The bigger issue is the monopoly of the champions league on a minnow channel means it gets little coverage on other channels, itv used to be big on champions league and as terrestrial it was beamed into the homes of everyone in the uk. Equally when on sky as well as itv the competition got significant coverage on those channels esp sky sports news. It was a big thing.

It gets really very little coverage now on those channels and the coverage on bt is awful. Pundits, camera angles , analysis . Just the whole competition does not get the profile it should. Consequently if this continues fans will switch off from the competition altogether. City fans have not always embraced Europe like others and I do worry that relegating such an important competition to bt will have significant affects on the popularity with fans. Clubs will still love it because of the global appeal and money but let's face it if God forbid city don't get 4th or above are you really going to give two shits about th champions league and certainly not enough to pay the monthly subscription.

Same here, in Utd/Chelsea day their progress was constantly on TV. Ours is hidden it feels like. The conclusion I came to was that in Europe we are seen in this competition and that does matter, building our reputation against other EU teams is the next target.

Anyone notice hhhhow BT didnt mention the booing at the game the other night? Have they been told they can not talk about it by UEFA?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

There is a danger that the viewing figures will fall away and BT will put it down to it being City in the competition and not a more 'traditional' big club. That would completely overlook the horrendous coverage they have produced. I hope some BT execs read through this and go back and look at the coverage again having read through these pages. They have made such a mess of this it's unreal its almost like they have tried to belittle the competition and the teams involved even though they have paid a ridiculous figure to cover it!

I don't think that's likely. That would ruin any good will with City if they spun it like that.

It may be readable into a 'traditional clubs not being involved', but that would be the media spinning, not BT.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

btw I wrote to simon greens boss. Doesnt matter that her reply was poor, but she knew what I was referring to and it always helps to have someone higher up the chain be aware.

But it;s a fact that this will even itself out, the more succesful we are, the more fans there will be, the more BT will want to pander to them