Match of the day.. No more Lineker*

[Thirsty Lizard 3,161]

I've heard on the grapevine that Paolo Di Canio is being lined up to present MOTD. Apparently he's an acceptable figure to the government and the Daily Fail. 

(Sorry - just been back through the thread and see that this particular joke has already been made a while back).

Edited March 10, 2023 by Thirsty Lizard

[Capt. Pants 4,226]

From Sky

Shearer tweeted: "I have informed the BBC that I won't be appearing on MOTD tomorrow night", while Wright had posted: "Everybody knows what Match of the Day means to me, but I've told the BBC I won't be doing it tomorrow. Solidarity."

A BBC spokesperson said: "Some of our pundits have said that they don't wish to appear on the programme while we seek to resolve the situation with Gary.

"We understand their position and we have decided that the programme will focus on match action without studio presentation or punditry."

Former Arsenal player Alex Scott appeared to rule herself out of possibly presenting the programme by posting a GIF with the words "Nah! Not me".

[mannings bandy legs 385]

3 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Lineker AND Wright both off the air? What's not to like?

Just need Murphy and Shearer to join them and MotD might be worth watching again.

OTBC

....least we won't have to listen to micah richards manic giggling and laughing..!!!!.Always record and skip the punditry anyway. This could backfire on those refusing to take part and save the BBC thousands of £££££'s.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

16 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

MOTD will be totally sh1t.

If there are any brilliant goals, shocking defending, controversial moments, VAR, sendings off there will be nothing to debate. 

It will just skip to the next game as though nothing ever happened.

Sounds perfect.

When everybody decides that they only really need the match highlights with commentary and that they actually really like that format, and the shorter length of the show, they could save a fortune by not paying Linker, Wright and Shearer.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Just now, mannings bandy legs said:

....least we won't have to listen to micah richards manic giggling and laughing..!!!!.Always record and skip the punditry anyway. This could backfire on those refusing to take part and save the BBC thousands of £££££'s.

Exactly, that's the boring bit. Commentary is enough.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

They got rid of Clarkson for a catalogue of behaviour problems, rule breaches and controversies which concluded with that incident, yes.

This is not Lineker's first reprimand for breaching impartiality rules, he has done it consistently on Twitter, he was already sailing close to the wind.

Its not complicated from where I'm sitting. The BBC have a very clear set of rules on impartiality. Lineker has breached those rules continuously, and therefore could be considered to be in breach of contract.

We all have rules set by our employers, if you work in Asda you are supposed to wear an Asda polo shirt, if you turn up to work in a Fred Perry polo shirt you can expect to get in trouble.

If you play football and you gamble on football games you are in breach of very clear guidelines and can expect to get into trouble.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about wearing Fred Perry polo shirts and or going into a bookies in a general sense, but when applied to specific jobs or industries then clearly they become a problem.

If Lineker doesn't agree with the BBC rules on impartiality then he shouldn't have signed his contract. You can't expect to work on a building site if you aren't prepared to wear a helmet. 

Does his contract, as someone who's not in the news department and also not a member of BBC staff (he works on a freelance basis and also works for other companies), still have such rules?

This link has the following quote: "A BBC spokesman stated: "[Lineker] is not involved in any news or political output for the BBC and, as such, any expression of his personal political views does not affect the BBC's impartiality."

Gary Lineker's VERY sassy response to BBC impartiality rules as he refuses to bow down - Mirror Online

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Sounds perfect.

When everybody decides that they only really need the match highlights with commentary and that they actually really like that format, and the shorter length of the show, they could save a fortune by not paying Linker, Wright and Shearer.

Wonder why no one has thought of that before.

[Capt. Pants 4,226]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Sounds perfect.

When everybody decides that they only really need the match highlights with commentary and that they actually really like that format, and the shorter length of the show, they could save a fortune by not paying Linker, Wright and Shearer.

Good I can have some of my licence fee back.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,161]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

They got rid of Clarkson for a catalogue of behaviour problems and controversies which concluded with that incident, yes.

Its not complicated from where I'm sitting. The BBC have a very clear set of rules on impartiality. Lineker has breached those rules continuously, and therefore could be considered to be in breach of contract.

We all have rules set by our employers, if you work in Asda you are supposed to wear an Asda polo shirt, if you turn up to work in a Fred Perry polo shirt you can expect to get in trouble.

If you play football and you gamble on football games you are in breach of very clear guidelines and can expect to get into trouble.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about wearing Fred Perry polo shirts and or going into a bookies in a general sense, but when applied to specific jobs or industries then clearly they become a problem.

If Lineker doesn't agree with the BBC rules on impartiality then he shouldn't have signed his contract. You can't expect to work on a building site if you aren't prepared to wear a helmet. 

You're sounding off without having a clue what the BBC guidelines are. The fact is that they're not clear at all

Here's one handy section taken from them. 

The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Does his contract, as someone who's not in the news department and also not a member of BBC staff (he works on a freelance basis and also works for other companies), still have such rules?

"Works on a freelance basis"

You mean gets paid via a ltd company instead of PAYE so he can pay less tax, before getting on twitter to lecture the government on how they should be spending tax revenues.

But I mean, neither of us know the answer to that. If the BBC were to sack him then they'd need to be confident that he is actually in breach of his contract wouldn't they, otherwise they'll end up in the courts. 

Of course, it wouldn't really be a "sacking" would it, if he's not an employee, as you point out, Lineker wouldn't be able to sue them for unfair or constructive dismissal, his shell company would have to sue for breach of contract, if he/they believe a breach has occurred. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

"Works on a freelance basis"

You mean gets paid via a ltd company instead of PAYE so he can pay less tax, before getting on twitter to lecture the government on how they should be spending tax revenues.

But I mean, neither of us know the answer to that. If the BBC were to sack him then they'd need to be confident that he is actually in breach of his contract wouldn't they, otherwise they'll end up in the courts. 

Of course, it wouldn't really be a "sacking" would it, if he's not an employee, as you point out, Lineker wouldn't be able to sue them for unfair or constructive dismissal, his shell company would have to sue for breach of contract, if he/they believe a breach has occurred. 

In other words, neither of us know if he's actually breached anything in a contract. We do know that rules for in-house news staff are stringent. We also know that the BBC has looser rules for those who don't work in the news department, and also for those who are not in-house.

Freelance would also mean independent so he doesn't have to swallow one company's line.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

12 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

You're sounding off without having a clue what the BBC guidelines are. The fact is that they're not clear at all

Here's one handy section taken from them. 

The risk is greater where the public expressions of opinion overlap with the area of the individual’s work. The risk is lower where an individual is expressing views publicly on an unrelated area, for example, a sports or science presenter expressing views on politics or the arts.

Shame you didn't read the section dedicated to social media then isn't it, which makes no such distinction, seeing as this all relates to a tweet, you certainly haven't copied that excerpt from it.  

You would have found all this for a start, which Lineker has ignored time and time again (particularly the second, but also the first on occasion). The only bone of contention is whether as technically a contractor he is subjected to the same policy. I know that at my place of employment contractors agree to the same company policies as us full time staff.

 

They should not:

• state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
• express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
• advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’
• exhort a change in high-profile public policy
• speak or write publicly about the BBC without specific, prior approval from the relevant head of department.

Rare exceptions, for example, when an individual is personally affected by a specific matter, must be declared as a conflict so that mitigating action can be taken.

Edited March 10, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

In other words, neither of us know if he's actually breached anything in a contract.

Isn't that what I just said?

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

But I mean, neither of us know the answer to that. 

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

The BBC proving you can never be left wing enough to avoid being canceled.

 

 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Isn't that what I just said?

 

Sure, but you said this at the end of page 4.
 

Quote

If Lineker doesn't agree with the BBC rules on impartiality then he shouldn't have signed his contract. You can't expect to work on a building site if you aren't prepared to wear a helmet. 

At this point, we don't even know with any certainty if the rules apply in his position as a non-staff member who is not in the news department. My suspicion is that what's compulsory with the in-house news team is merely a guideline for those who aren't, but I don't mind admitting that's a guess.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Sure, but you said this at the end of page 4.

At this point, we don't even know with any certainty if the rules apply in his position as a non-staff member who is not in the news department. My suspicion is that what's compulsory with the in-house news team is merely a guideline for those who aren't, but I don't mind admitting that's a guess.

We'll find out in due course.

I mean, he hasn't actually been terminated has he so this is all pre-empting that anyway, could be back on the air next week.

They make it sound like he'll be back on air once they have reached an agreement about this social media usage. What if he doesn't currently have the same contractual obligations as BBC staff but they are going to ask him to commit to them going forward?

I think the social media guidelines tough, which is clearly the relevant section here, state "all BBC staff", and don't distinguish between news/editorial staff and other staff. Whether as a contractor he has committed to the same rules or not is the unknown bit.

Edited March 10, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

We'll find out in due course.

I mean, he hasn't actually been terminated has he so this is all pre-empting that anyway, could be back on the air next week.

They make it sound like he'll be back on air once they have reached an agreement about this social media usage. What if he doesn't currently have the same contractual obligations as BBC staff but they are going to ask him to commit to them going forward?

What if he commits to them but also facilities an £800k loan for Starmer? Can he still present MOTD?

[Year of the tiger 54]

This impartially, does anyone reckon if Lineker had tweeted in favour of the immigration policy, he would have been disciplined?  It would still have been breaching impartiality

Edited March 10, 2023 by Year of the tiger

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

We'll find out in due course.

I mean, he hasn't actually been terminated has he so this is all pre-empting that anyway, could be back on the air next week.

They make it sound like he'll be back on air once they have reached an agreement about this social media usage. What if he doesn't currently have the same contractual obligations as BBC staff but they are going to ask him to commit to them going forward?

Personally, as long as he doesn't say them on Match of the Day, I couldn't give a rat's patootie. If his contractual obligations do change, what do you think that says about pressure from higher-ups at the BBC, especially with the known compromised position Richard Sharp is in with his donations and involvements in Johnson's loan?

Edited March 10, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

4 minutes ago, Year of the tiger said:

This impartially, does anyone reckon if Lineker had tweeted in favour of the immigration policy, he would have been disciplined?  It would still have been breaching impartiality

Of course he wouldn't. It would certainly have triggered a reaction on the left-wing, but do you really think they'd be so bothered about "impartiality" with Richard Sharp there at the helm?

[benchwarmer 625]

Latest news: Some Premiership players have contacted the PFA with a view to boycotting post-match interviews on MOTD.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,161]

12 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Shame you didn't read the section dedicated to social media then isn't it, which makes no such distinction, seeing as this all relates to a tweet, you certainly haven't copied that excerpt from it.  

You would have found all this for a start, which Lineker has ignored time and time again (particularly the second, but also the first on occasion). The only bone of contention is whether as technically a contractor he is subjected to the same policy. I know that at my place of employment contractors agree to the same company policies as us full time staff.

 

They should not:

• state or reveal publicly how they vote or express support for any political party
• express a view for or against any policy which is a matter of current party political debate
• advocate any particular position on a matter of public policy, political or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’
• exhort a change in high-profile public policy
• speak or write publicly about the BBC without specific, prior approval from the relevant head of department.

Rare exceptions, for example, when an individual is personally affected by a specific matter, must be declared as a conflict so that mitigating action can be taken.

Wow - somehow you just managed to miss out the preceding paragraphs which put all this into context. Since you've deliberately omitted them I've copied them here.

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

It's absolutely CRYSTAL CLEAR that the guidelines you've quoted don't apply to Lineker!!!!

 

[Herman 9,755]

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Personally, as long as he doesn't say them on Match of the Day, I couldn't give a rat's patootie. If his contractual obligations do change, what do you think that says about pressure from higher-ups at the BBC, especially with the known compromised position Richard Sharp is in with his donations and involvements in Johnson's loan?

Right, but other big name BBC presenters have left the BBC for (probably) lesser paid jobs in order to be able to speak more freely about their views. This includes Paxman and Marr (one's a right winger, the other is a liberal).

Andrew Marr as spoken out about this very immigration policy, but he did so in the New Statesmen, and on LBC, his new places of work. 

Why does no other BBC employee have a problem with following the rules at the BBC, and then leaving when they decide they don't want to anymore? Why does Gary Lineker think the laws don't apply to him, that he can do what he wants, and don't you think that might wind up other BBC presenters?

I'm all for BBC scrapping their impartiality laws entirely. But scrap the license fee in the process. They'll rely on commercial ad revenues then, but wouldn't be able to afford to pay Lineker a seven figure salary. They'd be in exactly the same position as LBC etc then wouldn't they, Lineker could say what he wanted. 

Only, he could go and do that now, work for any ad supported network

Don't expect an ad supported network to be some sort of liberal-left paradise though, they'll be at the mercy of their paymasters, and they are all corporate behemoths who don't want to pay more tax to fund public services.

Edited March 10, 2023 by TeemuVanBasten

[shefcanary 2,396]

Car crash piece on Lineker on NewsNight just know. The chair of the DCMS committee was being asked for comment and revealed he had evidence that the Chair and DG of the BBC have harangued BBC journalists over editorial choices in their offices. The debate was hurriedly shut down, you could almost hear the producers in the presenters ear piece!  

Oh dear, and in the centenary year as well. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Wow - somehow you just managed to miss out the preceding paragraphs which put all this into context. Since you've deliberately omitted them I've copied them here.

Individuals involved in the production or presentation of any output in News or other factual areas that regularly deal with a range of public policy issues have a particular responsibility to avoid damaging the BBC’s impartiality.

It's absolutely CRYSTAL CLEAR that the guidelines you've quoted don't apply to Lineker!!!!

 

Your reading comprehension is very poor.

"have a particular responsibility" does not mean what you think it does, it does not exclude anybody.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Right, but other big name BBC presenters have left the BBC for (probably) lesser paid jobs in order to be able to speak more freely about their views. This includes Paxman and Marr (one's a right winger, the other is a liberal).

Andrew Marr as spoken out about this very policy, but he did so in the New Statesmen, and on LBC, his new places of work. 

Why does no other BBC employee have a problem with following the rules at the BBC, and then leaving when they decide they don't want to anymore? Why does Gary Lineker think the laws don't apply to him, that he can do what he wants, and don't you think that might wind up other BBC presenters?

I'm all for BBC scrapping their impartiality laws entirely. But scrap the license fee in the process. They'll rely on commercial ad revenues then, but wouldn't be able to afford to pay Lineker a seven figure salary. They'd be in exactly the same position as LBC etc then wouldn't they, Lineker could say what he wanted. 

Only, he could go and do that now, work for any ad supported network

Don't expect an ad supported network to be some sort of liberal-left paradise though, they'll be at the mercy of their paymasters, and they are all corporate behemoths who don't want to pay more tax to fund public services.

Paxman and Marr were both in the news set, right? Again, we know those within the news team are held to the impartiality clause, and if they're in-house staff (I think both were, weren't they?), double it. 

We already know from the Mirror link I put in earlier that as someone who is not in the news department, a BBC spokesman said it is of lesser import that someone who is not in the news department follows this. However, it's not crystal clear - which we have both agreed on.

Incidentally, this is making me, who thought scrapping the licence fee a decent idea, think otherwise.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

Car crash piece on Lineker on NewsNight just know. The chair of the DCMS committee was being asked for comment and revealed he had evidence that the Chair and DG of the BBC have harangued BBC journalists over editorial choices in their offices. The debate was hurriedly shut down, you could almost hear the producers in the presenters ear piece!  

Oh dear, and in the centenary year as well. 

The most depressing thing is the tens of millions of quid they'll now pay to have an "inquiry" into impartiality guidelines which will last many years and then come up with a report with loads of redacted text with a recommendation that a few guidelines change, a change that Sally the secretary could have knocked up in 30 minutes using her common sense after a strong coffee.

[Pyro Pete 1,891]

Sky Sports putting the boot in:

 

[Capt. Pants 4,226]

24 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

Latest news: Some Premiership players have contacted the PFA with a view to boycotting post-match interviews on MOTD.

Players may boycott MOTD post-match interviews tomorrow

BBC Sport understands a number of players from various clubs have contacted the Professional Footballers Association (PFA) tonight saying they may want to show solidarity with Gary Lineker and Match of the Day pundits over the BBC impartiality row by boycotting the programme's post-match interviews tomorrow.

The PFA - which has been in talks with players and clubs on the matter - are believed to be supportive of any players who choose to do so.