Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Just because Collymore points it out doesn’t mean it holds any weight. If anything he’s cut from the same roll of SJW cloth the OTB lads were tailored from because he has, and always has had, an agenda. He’ll be the type emboldened by the events of 2020. The Sadlier comments were relevant to the teams playing on the night but weren’t really of any relevance to events on the pitch which is what he is paid to do. That Collymore highlights them doesn’t legitimise them in my eyes. I prefer the Giles’, Souness’ and Dunphys of this world. Richie can be easily described with the W word.

Point is there is interest in conversations about more than just scores and line ups.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Point is there is interest in conversations about more than just scores and line ups.

There might be but how many people specifically tuned into watch football but were left baffled by Richie’s crusade? Maybe 50 times more than those who sought a counselling session? 100 times more perhaps? 1000?

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

I think you are mixing me up with Tell me how, I haven't posted in here since last week.

Apologies, exactly as you said, mixed you up with another poster.

styron

Jayesdiem wrote: »

There might be but how many people specifically tuned into watch football but were left baffled by Richie’s crusade? Maybe 50 times more than those who sought a counselling session? 100 times more perhaps? 1000?

It's been watched over 2.7 million times in less than two days.

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

I've watched, heard and read all those topics covered on TV sports shows, other sports radio shows, sports podcasts, Youtube sport channels and newspaper sports sections .i.e., the mainstream sports media. You're out of step with the mainstream and you don't like it. Tough, it's not going to change for your benefit.

Surely there is a balance to be struck. I like when OTB takes a deep dive into topics and enjoy when they place sports stories in a wider societal context, but I don't enjoy the preaching and sermonising of the presenters that tends to come with it as it is shallow and cheap virtue signalling in the main.

For what it's worth, I hang around with a bunch of lads - now mostly married with kids - who are all college educated, in good jobs and have all played sport to a decent level and we rarely sit down and talk about the topics that are so hotly debated here. But we also don't just natter about transfer talk and the results of games. We are somewhere in between. That's not to say I don't enjoy some of the coverage of these issues on OTB, but I would imagine that most could take it or leave it.

Honestly, I don't see why there is such a divide on here. There seems to be a narrative created by the staunch defenders of the show - you wouldn't need to be an expert to read between the lines - that you have to be smart and discerning to understand why some issues are covered in a certain way and that those who don't like this coverage are lesser. I think that is silly and naive.

I enjoy the show, but I do think the quality has dipped of late, and, ironically given the nature of the conversation, that it has been dumbed down to an extent. I do enjoy the coverage that is not just straightforward analysis and takes a deeper look at issues and places them in a wider context. However, I don't like it when the presenters use the show and as a vehicle to signal their virtues. The best contributors - the likes of Dan McDonnell - don't ever feel the need to do that and just get on with doing their job well.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Point is there is interest in conversations about more than just scores and line ups.

Are you going to answer the question I put to you? As I said, I'm not trying to have a go at you but I am interested...

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yeah I agree with this. I find Kimmage a bit of a one trick pony these days. Seems to be volume over quality. Even the style he has has stayed stuck. Transcribes pages and pages of his interviews word for word. He seemed fresh once upon a time, not now.

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

I always feel like it should come with a TLDR summary at the end!

CatFromHue wrote: »

I much prefer Kimmage's Q&A style of interviews, you get exactly what the interviewee is saying as supposed to what the interviewer thinks they're saying

Tell me how wrote: »

I much rather Kimmages inquisitive style which showcase warts and all of a situation or person than the bland focus pieces that are little more than a PR exercise for the athlete or team.

I understand both your points. But I feel transcribing every bit word for word makes it lose its impact. A bit of editing would not go amiss, seems like a lazy approach time and again dressed up as 'warts and all'. Getting to the truth etc.

As for the OTB show itself I must confess I have not listened to it in ages. Feel I have outgrown it and seems a bit stale for my liking. However, I have come across a few OTB you tube videos which show things are changing?

Younger/newer presenters given more time that have a bit of 'go' in them. Who don't try to be 'edgy' for the sake of it. Plus just deliver decent sports interviews or talk about sports people. No idea of the new lads names, is a while since I listened to it as I said.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Further evidence of the interest people have in topical items and real world events being discussed in the context of sport. Not just Stans comments, but the reaction to the comments Richie made all across social media.

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1296043177540018177

The fact that has gained so much traction would say the opposite to me. I would suggest that it confirms the vast majority of people have a surface level interest in sport, they rarely engage beyond the headlines and the obvious. None of this would be in any way new to anyone who has an actual interest in football.

BPKS

Tell me how wrote: »

Further evidence of the interest people have in topical items and real world events being discussed in the context of sport. Not just Stans comments, but the reaction to the comments Richie made all across social media.

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1296043177540018177

The irony of you quoting Stan Collymore to back up your arguments is brilliant.

The same Stan Collymore who once beat the sh1t out of Ulrika Johnson.

I thought you would have cancelled Stan at this stage.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

The fact that has gained so much traction would say the opposite to me. I would suggest that it confirms the vast majority of people have a surface level interest in sport, they rarely engage beyond the headlines and the obvious. None of this would be in any way new to anyone who has an actual interest in football.

BPKS wrote: »

The irony of you quoting Stan Collymore to back up your arguments is brilliant.

The same Stan Collymore who once beat the sh1t out of Ulrika Johnson.

I thought you would have cancelled Stan at this stage.

Exactly, Stan the hypocrite goes moralistic while hiding behind the trendy Shield of depression/mental health. Zero respect for the guy.

Nor would I care about what he has to say. Most of it is to self style himself as a pseudo intellectual 'thinking mans' footballer.

Ironically a lot of the stuff Sadlier does. But Sadlier did not hit women, nor is he as self pitying as Collymore. I used to listen to Collymore's guff on talksport seeks controversy to make his name - get limelight. I see through bullsh1tters.

southstar

Jayesdiem wrote: »

If you hang around boards or Reddit, which I unfortunately do, you could be forgiven for thinking the entire world is woke, leftist BLM supporters. It is isn’t though and a good majority of people have contempt for that segment of society and resent it being part of daily dialogue, never mind sport. I’m serious when I say this - it’s an absolute scourge on society and sport, which was always supposed to remain politics free.

Completely agree I can't say I've heard these topics discussed by colleagues at work/elsewhere when general dialogue about sport occurs. Its mainly pushed as polemic in sports media to appear relevant, fill space, be cool ...whatever ..but very irritating Imo

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you going to answer the question I put to you? As I said, I'm not trying to have a go at you but I am interested...

What was the question?

Tell me how

BPKS wrote: »

The irony of you quoting Stan Collymore to back up your arguments is brilliant.

The same Stan Collymore who once beat the sh1t out of Ulrika Johnson.

I thought you would have cancelled Stan at this stage.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Exactly, Stan the hypocrite goes moralistic while hiding behind the trendy Shield of depression/mental health. Zero respect for the guy.

Nor would I care about what he has to say. Most of it is to self style himself as a pseudo intellectual 'thinking mans' footballer.

Ironically a lot of the stuff Sadlier does. But Sadlier did not hit women, nor is he as self pitying as Collymore. I used to listen to Collymore's guff on talksport seeks controversy to make his name - get limelight. I see through bullsh1tters.

So, Stan's history excludes him from having an interest in elements outside of the basics of sport being discussed? Why?

And irrespective of this, the point was that the topic which Richie mentioned and the manner in which he did it was widely well received, as somone else pointed out the clip at that point had been viewed nearly 3M times.

There is an appetite for much more than the basics.

Tell me how

southstar wrote: »

Completely agree I can't say I've heard these topics discussed by colleagues at work/elsewhere when general dialogue about sport occurs. Its mainly pushed as polemic in sports media to appear relevant, fill space, be cool ...whatever ..but very irritating Imo

I'd hazard a guess that if you were someone or had someone you cared about been affected by such issues, you would be much more open to see them being discussed on a top sports show.

People on this thread seem to lose their sh*t over what tantamounts to a few minutes of a conversation on a topical issue at most probably a couple of times a week.

I'd be pretty sure that if they spent 3 minutes discussing a female ref during a newsround that this thread would be in uproar about it and ignoring the fact that it was 3 minutes out of a 3 hours show.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

What was the question?

I think I'll tap out of this debate. It's a bit like playing handball against a haystack. I think we agree broadly on a lot of issues, but your take on others, and your complete inability to cede an inch from your polemic starting point, seems to stem from your assertion that you are smarter than everyone else. Most people get over that phase when they are about 17.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

So, Stan's history excludes him from having an interest in elements outside of the basics of sport being discussed? Why?

And irrespective of this, the point was that the topic which Richie mentioned and the manner in which he did it was widely well received, as somone else pointed out the clip at that point had been viewed nearly 3M times.

There is an appetite for much more than the basics.

I never said Stan is not entitled to discuss such issues. I just see through what he is at. In reality he has Little interest in such issues. I doubt he knows more than the cursory basics firmly formed within the prism of a biased British media. Our culture is superior to yours etc - talk sport "look at Johnny Foreigner - they don't like it up em" - Soccer - Brexit - Middle East

1) Stan wants to appear clever and edgy
2) Stan wants clicks and views
3) Vast majority of people just watch sport for the goals, the misses, the drama, the sweat, determination, the tactics.
4) Most people enjoy sport because of the craic and slagging around a sport-the friends made on the pitch and off it

Granted, politics can use sport Haughey 'winning the tour de France' 1987, Mussolini 1934 and 1938 world cups. 1978 world cup Cruyff warned not to attend or he will be shot (he kept it secret).

But most people forget about all this stuff, and it is about what happens on the pitch. One team against another in competition. Down played in an AI despite a pub bombing in 1994 (people who were watching the soccer Loughinisland, Down).Plus they won that year!

It all comes back to sport one team against another, all the rest fades away for real sports fans. All this 'my culture is morally superior to yours' is irrelevant when the match starts among the players.

Edit: I also don't like the Red Bull drink I don't like the taste. But many in football are consumers of a brand - dressed up as loyalty worldwide. A RB Leipzig and RB Salzburg was only the next logical step. I admire the marketing strategy (sports/extreme sports) despite such a poor product that is full of sugar (in little cans) - it clearly works.
Plus America for example is full of 'marketing franchises' they don't hide from it - different cultures.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I'll tap out of this debate. It's a bit like playing handball against a haystack. I think we agree broadly on a lot of issues, but your take on others, and your complete inability to cede an inch from your polemic starting point, seems to stem from your assertion that you are smarter than everyone else. Most people get over that phase when they are about 17.

There was confusion over who the question was directed at. Now you are throwing the toys out of the cot rather than repeat it? Why should I have to go through posts to determine which post/question is the one you want answered.

You guys seem to get very frustrated that I don't buy in to the collective circle jerk of negativity and judgement most here seem to desire.
Yesterday we saw people being adamant that bo one is interested in more serious topics being discussed based purely on their experience amongst their friends and colleagues. Despite the evidence to the contrary.

And you think it is reasonable to suggest I am the one who has the impression I am smarter than everyone else? Or that I dont cede an inch? This thread has maybe 10-12 people who post any way regularly on this thread. Theres me and 1 more, possibly 2, who post from the position of enjoying the content, presenters or topics. Everyone else has nothing but negativity to say. Day after day, post after post. And then the barbs are aimed at me for countering this deluge of complaining with trying to point out the reality of how successful the show is. Or how there is a lot to enjoy about it. Or for trying to mention a topic or piece which might be interesting to discuss here.

But I'm the one who won't cede an inch apparently? There was a poster here recently complaining about the Dad focused podcast. A podcast that you really have to make an effort to find and listen to. Again, what we got was the negative and judgemental angle rather than acknowledging that they obviously enjoy a lot about the show/presenters to seek out the podcast.

There are some here who are convinced I have something to do with the show, like that is the only reason I could be positive about a show which itself has won numerous awards, whose presenters have won awards, which has successfully expanded outside it's original timeframe and across a multitude of platforms and in to outside venues.
I refuse to take part in what is for some people is the national pastime of whinging, complaining and judging while ignoring the evidence.

Don't ask your question so, whatever it was, I've probably answered it before.

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I never said Stan is not entitled to discuss such issues. I just see through what he is at. In reality he has Little interest in such issues. I doubt he knows more than the cursory basics firmly formed within the prism of a biased British media. Our culture is superior to yours etc - talk sport "look at Johnny Foreigner - they don't like it up em" - Soccer - Brexit - Middle East

1) Stan wants to appear clever and edgy
2) Stan wants clicks and views
3) Vast majority of people just watch sport for the goals, the misses, the drama, the sweat, determination, the tactics.
4) Most people enjoy sport because of the craic and slagging around a sport-the friends made on the pitch and off it
.

Why is it that anyone who expresses an opinion on something which is of a different opinion to yours, is only doing it to appear clever and edgy and only wants clicks and views? Are they not allowed to have their own interests and speak about something to be passionate about. In fact, UK media is populated by a large number of people who go out of their way to not say anything controversial which detracts from the analysis of games massively.

If points 3 and 4 were correct, there wouldn't be any sports biographies, documentaries or feature articles.

Or The Athletic wouldn't have developed a strategy which included the purpose, 'Go beyond the box score...

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Granted, politics can use sport Haughey 'winning the tour de France' 1987, Mussolini 1934 and 1938 world cups. 1978 world cup Cruyff warned not to attend or he will be shot (he kept it secret).

But most people forget about all this stuff, and it is about what happens on the pitch. One team against another in competition. Down played in an AI despite a pub bombing in 1994 (people who were watching the soccer Loughinisland, Down).Plus they won that year!

It all comes back to sport one team against another, all the rest fades away for real sports fans. All this 'my culture is morally superior to yours' is irrelevant when the match starts among the players.

There's way more interconnection between sport and politics than the simple rare cases you mentioned above. Check out the histories of Real Madrid and Barcelona and the roles each club has played in reflecting the political allegiances of their fans of you want to go really deep on just one example.

The experience of the newly formed East Belfast Gaa club was discussed recently on the show and specifically, the day of them playing their first hurling match started with a bomb threat being made against the club.
That was just 2 weeks ago. A club, in East Belfast, which has protestants approaching it asking if they can play? If that isn't interesting to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given that you mentioned Down and Loghinisland in 1994, a more in depth consideration of those events would have told you that some Down players new people who died in the attack and they went out and won the Ulster semi-final the day after the attack happened despite they and the crowd being pretty much in shock and hardly able to focus on the game. After they won the Ulster final and before the All Ireland semi-final, they played in a fundraising match for the families of the victims. There is way more of interest in relation to that event than simply acknowledging that Down won the All Ireland 3 months later.

Your assessment that interest in such topics comes down to trying to determine or ascertain that one persons culture is better than the other is very wide of the mark.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Edit: I also don't like the Red Bull drink I don't like the taste. But many in football are consumers of a brand - dressed up as loyalty worldwide. A RB Leipzig and RB Salzburg was only the next logical step. I admire the marketing strategy (sports/extreme sports) despite such a poor product that is full of sugar (in little cans) - it clearly works.
Plus America for example is full of 'marketing franchises' they don't hide from it - different cultures.

Irrespective of what is going on in America, RB Leipzig is interesting for the specific reason which Richie outlined, there is massive dislike in Germany amongst the fans of their clubs who hold ownership in their respective teams for what RB Leipzig has done.
At a time where we see consistent protests amongst fans of Man Utd and Newcastle against their owners for seemingly not having the best interest of the club at heart, I would think a huge amount of people have interest in what has happened in Germany.

US sport is for the most part an entertainment business. I was in Boston last summer when the Bruins were playing game 7 of the Stanley Cup against St Louis. The bar I watched the game in was packed with people wearing Bruins gear. St Louis scored twice in the first period and it was obvious even then that the Bruins were unlikely to win. Pretty much everyone turned away from the TV's, focused more on chatting to their friends or ordering food and by the time St Louis went 3-0 up in the 3rd period, the bar was virtually empty.
In Ireland, or the UK, or Germany, Spain, Italy etc, 'fans' would not have just switched off in the same way, they'd have become despondent and some would have left but there wouldn't have been the same indifference as I saw here. Go to an NBA, MLB, NFL game and you will see that at any one time, at least 10% of the fans are away from their seats as they go get food or drink. There are hardcore fans, but they are much smaller in volume than what we see typically in Europe and why the Leipzig thing is interesting. Because, it is a significant change from current practices and not necessarily a positive change which is why so many actually do have an interest in it. Or at least they should, rather than waiting until everything has changed and then start to complain when it is too late.

Piehead

It’s dweeb radio these days

EmmetSpiceland

Piehead wrote: »

It’s dweeb radio these days

Yeah and all the “jocks” are online whinging about BLM and #metoo. Sure thing, pal. Sure.

Tell me how

Someone should tell Kieran that people aren't interested in non-sport specific angles.

https://twitter.com/KCsixtyseven/status/1296828904469147648

Or this article from the NY Times.

https://twitter.com/JohnBranchNYT/status/1296831587842027521

2 examples from the last hour which I didn't even look for

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

Why is it that anyone who expresses an opinion on something which is of a different opinion to yours, is only doing it to appear clever and edgy and only wants clicks and views? Are they not allowed to have their own interests and speak about something to be passionate about. In fact, UK media is populated by a large number of people who go out of their way to not say anything controversial which detracts from the analysis of games massively.

Not true either it is old points rehashed - "and look how clever I am able to look beyond football". Let's be honest Tommo and Micka in thier Dublin local just want watch a match, talk about a game and have a few jars. Tommo and Micka are not discussing the pros and cons of Federal Constitutional Monarchies v's Unitary absolute monarchies. Nor do they discuss Red Bulls move from Guerrilla Marketing, sports sponsorship or content marketing.

If points 3 and 4 were correct, there wouldn't be any sports biographies, documentaries or feature articles.

There is all the above precisely because of sport itself. It is ancillary to the main interest the game itself. So people can get opinions on the game, player. opponent and so on.

Or The Athletic wouldn't have developed a strategy which included the purpose, 'Go beyond the box score...

The Athletic is just sports journalism styled as intellectual, not like the common man would read. When you break it down they are nothing more than opinion pieces or historical pieces. Hardly as innovative as they like to pretend.

There's way more interconnection between sport and politics than the simple rare cases you mentioned above. Check out the histories of Real Madrid and Barcelona and the roles each club has played in reflecting the political allegiances of their fans of you want to go really deep on just one example.

I well know the histories of Real and Barcelona thanks very much. But they are just football clubs when all is said and done. Now global brands. All that
'More than a club' is just mere marketing. Celtic, Man United, Liverpool etc do the same thing. We are special etc

The experience of the newly formed East Belfast Gaa club was discussed recently on the show and specifically, the day of them playing their first hurling match started with a bomb threat being made against the club.
That was just 2 weeks ago. A club, in East Belfast, which has protestants approaching it asking if they can play? If that isn't interesting to you, then I don't know what to tell you.

I would prefer to watch a match they are playing if I am honest. Could not give a damn what religion they were/are.

Given that you mentioned Down and Loghinisland in 1994, a more in depth consideration of those events would have told you that some Down players new people who died in the attack and they went out and won the Ulster semi-final the day after the attack happened despite they and the crowd being pretty much in shock and hardly able to focus on the game. After they won the Ulster final and before the All Ireland semi-final, they played in a fundraising match for the families of the victims. There is way more of interest in relation to that event than simply acknowledging that Down won the All Ireland 3 months later.

Not to me, I think Linden, McCartan in thier pomp who won a second Sam in four years. Plus Pete McGrath himself said that they became antithesised to violence and they go on with it. No highfalutin guff required.

Your assessment that interest in such topics comes down to trying to determine or ascertain that one persons culture is better than the other is very wide of the mark.

I don't think it is. All you have to do is look at coverage and attitude to cultures foreign to the likes of Britain. Assuming that Poland, Ukraine would be full of skin heads in 2012, advising black people not to go! Right down to recent soccer history where Clough laughed at a Polish keeper and called him a clown in the 70's.

I get the same sense of superiority from criticism of RB or PSG.

Irrespective of what is going on in America, RB Leipzig is interesting for the specific reason which Richie outlined, there is massive dislike in Germany amongst the fans of their clubs who hold ownership in their respective teams for what RB Leipzig has done.
At a time where we see consistent protests amongst fans of Man Utd and Newcastle against their owners for seemingly not having the best interest of the club at heart, I would think a huge amount of people have interest in what has happened in Germany.

I am glad you mentioned the Glazers because criticism of them died down fairly quickly when they kept winning and signing big players. Fans are just fickle hypocrites. Newcastle the same when they were owned by Sheppard all the initial big spending fizzled out. You can say what you like about Ashley but he has stabilised the club. Would Newcastle prefer to do a 1990's Leeds or 1990's Man City?

US sport is for the most part an entertainment business. I was in Boston last summer when the Bruins were playing game 7 of the Stanley Cup against St Louis. The bar I watched the game in was packed with people wearing Bruins gear. St Louis scored twice in the first period and it was obvious even then that the Bruins were unlikely to win. Pretty much everyone turned away from the TV's, focused more on chatting to their friends or ordering food and by the time St Louis went 3-0 up in the 3rd period, the bar was virtually empty.
In Ireland, or the UK, or Germany, Spain, Italy etc, 'fans' would not have just switched off in the same way, they'd have become despondent and some would have left but there wouldn't have been the same indifference as I saw here. Go to an NBA, MLB, NFL game and you will see that at any one time, at least 10% of the fans are away from their seats as they go get food or drink. There are hardcore fans, but they are much smaller in volume than what we see typically in Europe and why the Leipzig thing is interesting. Because, it is a significant change from current practices and not necessarily a positive change which is why so many actually do have an interest in it. Or at least they should, rather than waiting until everything has changed and then start to complain when it is too late.

I see nothing wrong with it at all. Football clubs are brands anyway. PL Fans picks successful ones aged 10 (mostly) for example. As for getting food sure that craic even happens in Croke Park annoying when watching a game. Or having a pint in premium or even Canal bar (horrible pints). But it all goes back to the sport so I accept it. Plus you only have to look at cynical way the Barclays PremierLeague advertised to its various consumers. Pretending it is a special bond.

Barclays Worldwide Advert:

Barclay's local advert:

And it seems to to forgotten Barclays are a Bank!

Plus who is heavily invested in Barclays?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/02/barclays-qataris-spoke-to-gordon-brown-to-defuse-2008-bailout-pressure

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49951412#:~:text=Three%20former%20top%20Barclays%20executives,bank%20during%20the%20financial%20crisis.

Only the Qatari's

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not true either it is old points rehashed - "and look how clever I am able to look beyond football". Let's be honest Tommo and Micka in thier Dublin local just want watch a match, talk about a game and have a few jars. Tommo and Micka are not discussing the pros and cons of Federal Constitutional Monarchies v's Unitary absolute monarchies. Nor do they discuss Red Bulls move from Guerrilla Marketing, sports sponsorship or content marketing.



There is all the above precisely because of sport itself. It is ancillary to the main interest the game itself. So people can get opinions on the game, player. opponent and so on.

Or The Athletic wouldn't have developed a strategy which included the purpose, 'Go beyond the box score...

The Athletic is just sports journalism styled as intellectual, not like the common man would read. When you break it down they are nothing more than opinion pieces or historical pieces. Hardly as innovative as they like to pretend.




I well know the histories of Real and Barcelona thanks very much. But they are just football clubs when all is said and done. Now global brands. All that
'More than a club' is just mere marketing. Celtic, Man United, Liverpool etc do the same thing. We are special etc



I would prefer to watch a match they are playing if I am honest. Could not give a damn what religion they were/are.



Not to me, I think Linden, McCartan in thier pomp who won a second Sam in four years. Plus Pete McGrath himself said that they became antithesised to violence and they go on with it. No highfalutin guff required.



I don't think it is. All you have to do is look at coverage and attitude to cultures foreign to the likes of Britain. Assuming that Poland, Ukraine would be full of skin heads in 2012, advising black people not to go! Right down to recent soccer history where Clough laughed at a Polish keeper and called him a clown in the 70's.

I get the same sense of superiority from criticism of RB or PSG.




I am glad you mentioned the Glazers because criticism of them died down fairly quickly when they kept winning and signing big players. Fans are just fickle hypocrites. Newcastle the same when they were owned by Sheppard all the initial big spending fizzled out. You can say what you like about Ashley but he has stabilised the club. Would Newcastle prefer to do a 1990's Leeds or 1990's Man City?




I see nothing wrong with it at all. Football clubs are brands anyway. PL Fans picks successful ones aged 10 (mostly) for example. As for getting food sure that craic even happens in Croke Park annoying when watching a game. Or having a pint in premium or even Canal bar (horrible pints). But it all goes back to the sport so I accept it. Plus you only have to look at cynical way the Barclays PremierLeague advertised to its various consumers. Pretending it is a special bond.

Barclays Worldwide Advert:

Barclay's local advert:

And it seems to to forgotten Barclays are a Bank!

Plus who is heavily invested in Barclays?

Only the Qatari's

And this brings us once again back to the point that lots of sports output isn't just aimed at Tommo and Micka or yourself. There are plenty who like to hear and discuss more.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

And this brings us once again back to the point that lots of sports output isn't just aimed at Tommo and Micka or yourself. There are plenty who like to hear and discuss more.

See you are not really a real sports fan watches the games. You are more of an observer of all the things which surround the actual game itself off the pitch. Hand under the chin type wistful philosophising. I get the feeling you would love if OTB constantly did that stuff and ignored the actual games!

Personally its sounds silly to me it is not an arts show on BBC4. Most of OTB are Arts and English students so it is to be expected I suppose.

Personally only time I will switch on OTB is if I can't see a live game and they have it on.

deisedude

Genuine question. If some of ye hate the show so much why do ye keep listening to it?

You know what you are getting at this stage

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

See you are not really a real sports fan watches the games. You are more of an observer of all the things which surround the actual game itself off the pitch. Hand under the chin type wistful philosophising. I get the feeling you would love if OTB constantly did that stuff and ignored the actual games!

Personally its sounds silly to me it is not an arts show on BBC4. Most of OTB are Arts and English students so it is to be expected I suppose.

Personally only time I will switch on OTB is if I can't see a live game and they have it on.

Where there is a rule that you can't be both?

You can enjoy your sport any way you want but I think you have to acknowledge the way you do so is not necessarily the way everyone does?

Why should the content of a show be aimed at someone who only listens when they are covering a live game?

gormdubhgorm

deisedude wrote: »

Genuine question. If some of ye hate the show so much why do ye keep listening to it?

You know what you are getting at this stage

I don't! A few you tube clips most I have seen in the last year plus. And I commented on those because were new people with a bit of 'go' in them. Which was good to see.

Now I just look on this thread to see if there is anything changing/worthwhile like there used to be.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

Where there is a rule that you can't be both?

You can enjoy your sport any way you want but I think you have to acknowledge the way you do so is not necessarily the way everyone does?

Why should the content of a show be aimed at someone who only listens when they are covering a live game?

Because it is the nature of sport itself the actual game, records, despair, joy, collapse upsets. All the rest of the stuff is over analyse of nothing.

Fair enough you like that sports journalist philosophy stuff. But jayus Graham Hunter for example. Pure waffler.

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because it is the nature of sport itself the actual game, records, despair, joy, collapse upsets. All the rest of the stuff is over analyse of nothing.

Fair enough you like that sports journalist philosophy stuff. But jayus Graham Hunter for example. Pure waffler.

To be fair, you've just said how you no longer listen to the show and are actively talking about what the show is like on here.

And you suggest in depth analysis is analysis of nothing.

I don't know what to tell you.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

To be fair, you've just said how you no longer listen to the show and are actively talking about what the show is like on here.

And you suggest in depth analysis is analysis of nothing.

I don't know what to tell you.

Not true saw a few you tube clips recommended recently where I asked on here are things changing? After I saw it.

It was not trying to be clever stuff, just an interview by people I had not seen before. Bit of 'go' in them as I said. Was hoping there was a bit of an OTB clear out tbh!