Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

Female Football Representation

Martin Simmonds's picture

This Richard Keys / Andy Gray story is going to gather pace today I suspect. BBC Radio Five Live (a rival broadcaster) had it as their main headline on the news this morning.

My initial reaction is that anyone who dons the referees or linesman uniform and runs on to the pitch has my admiration at any level of football. Anyone who has attended a live match in the last 40 years will be aware of the stick and abuse referees get (good natured and otherwise).

Any official who doesn't fit the stereotype or has the temerity to represent a minority group has to put up with all sorts of additional pressure from the crowd (and it now seems) from the media. I have tremendous respect and admiration for those few women who have made it through to the higher levels of football thus far, and I hope this will continue to grow.

Quite what this particular incident means for broadcasters I do not know. There must be newsrooms and studios all over the country thinking "there but for the grace of God go I". A rogue recording on a basic mobile phone can cause a lot of damage.

Keys has been the flagship presenter on Sky Sports ever since they won the rights to show Premiership football all those years ago.

Will he still be in place come the live match this evening I wonder?

I supect Karen Brady is sharening her pencil as we speak. (Busy week for her all round).

0

Everybody gets so worked up about things nowadays...

So he said something stupid. Haven't we all? This is not a cause for a witch hunt, but then again maybe I'm just a sexist pig.

6
Patrick Crowther | 24 January 2011 - 11:33am

It's the way that yesterday morning

at 9am nobody was ranting and raving about sexism in football and then up pops this duo of muppets and everyone up in arms and then tommorow nobody gives tuppence for sexism in football.
All for pointing out to muppets the error of their ways but these 15 minutes of dramatic outrage are getting tedious.

0
Chris G | 24 January 2011 - 11:59am

I blame Twitter

I don't really, but it does seem to be the medium via which these storm-in-a-teacup outrages are whipped up.

0
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 12:37pm

yes it's short form a boon

most of the time doesn't lead to nuance sometimes. All forms of communication have their downsides.

0
Chris G | 24 January 2011 - 1:28pm

This surprises me

Comments about athletes' performances on game day are fair enough. Ditto the refs. The more imaginative the condemnation or derision the better. However to ascribe as the root cause of poor performance gender, race, sexual orientation or anything from birth rather than, say, a granny hooker, a few of rails of coke and a pint glass of champagne the night before is a bad thing.

1
MyAmericanMate | 24 January 2011 - 7:56pm

Bitchy Stars / Linesman

I posted a blog about this earlier but it didn't come up. I must've pressed preview instead of post.

But yeah, there's no doubt that Keys and Gray come over like a pair of golf club bores here, but then it was a private conversation. Like Gordon Brown's 'bigoted woman' incident back in May, I'm uncomfortable with it. I don't think any of us would want all of our private thoughts and comments laid bare. If they lose their (very long held) positions over this, I'll be very disappointed.

2
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 11:47am

Support for AG?

As someone who was having a drink at his golf club on Saturday and was almost certainly being a bit boring I resent the comparison. That being said I also don't think Andy Gray should be sacked over this, surely he's got enough previous that he can be sacked for that instead. As remarked elsewhere, his tedious habit of playing to the gallery by highlighting refereeing decisions he reckons are wrong (no doubt encouraged by his Sky producers) substantially outweighs any insights he may bring to his role. One of the more laughable aspects of his standard shtick is to berate referees for not having played the game at the highest level and therefore not having sufficient understanding to inform their decision-making. Piffle. It begs two questions, does this mean the better their football skills, the better their refereeing; and how many matches a year does Andy Gray referee? I would pay to watch him have a go at least.

0
Scroby | 24 January 2011 - 12:32pm

Support for AG?

Not at all.

Just support for privacy.

1
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 12:33pm

Sorry - bad choice of subject title

I wasn't suggesting anyone was supporting him, I was trying to be a bit amusing about my own comment in that I was at first seeming to defend him and then...Bang...in with my killer critique. My objection is not that he's a pratt in private but he's a pratt in public too - and it's on my Murdoch dime.

0
Scroby | 24 January 2011 - 1:15pm

Not sacked

but they've both been suspended.

0
doubleyoubee | 24 January 2011 - 2:26pm

Thing is

if you get paid well to cover football in the mainstream media and you make a significant mistake on air, you are not doing your job right. This is what they have done.

I don't agree with their point of view but they are allowed it. But as soon as they start expressing it on air, whether by mistake or not, then they can hardly moan about having to deal with the pressure.

One of the things I don't like about Andy Gray is his ability to undermine the decisions of officials made in the heat of the moment whilst he has the aid of countless replays, camera angles and a discussion with his co-host to form his opinion. Making the wrong decision in the heat of the moment may be coming back to haunt him.

And put simply, anyone who thinks a woman is unable to understand the offside decision because of genetics is an idiot.

5
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 11:52am

Was it on air?

I don't believe it was broadcast.

0
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 11:52am

I watched the game

And didn't hear it. But this story says the remarks were broadcast.

0
Fraser Lewry | 24 January 2011 - 11:54am

No it wasn't

broadcast. Their microphones were still on and it was picked up and recorded on someone's mobile phone. But it wasn't broadcast.

1
Simon Ford | 24 January 2011 - 12:15pm

Thanks

Re-reading the piece, it does say that the remarks weren't broadcast.

0
Fraser Lewry | 24 January 2011 - 12:21pm

That was the story I'd read

I still think they're idiots though even though they are professional enough broadcasters to avoid being an idiot live on air.

And, laughably, the official got the decision right and the male experts got it wrong.

1
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 12:30pm

This is a familiar story

It is a variant on the Ron Atkinson/Carol Thatcher incidents, isn't it? Although I suspect that Sky will stick with the gents.

0
BigJimBob | 24 January 2011 - 11:54am

Silly boys

The funny thing is that the assistant referee in question made a brilliant decision in the Wolves game when one of the Liverpool goals looked for all the world like it was off-side but was clearly shown not to be on the replay.

I saw a Leyton Orient Youth Cup game a few years ago refereed by a woman aged 25 or so, and the rivalry between the teams was decidedly 'spicy'.
However, the presence of an older female on the pitch definitely made the two sets of players more respectful when they were being spoken to.
Ditto a rugby union match (although those guys do tend to be more respectful) at Chingford last season.

1
ranger | 24 January 2011 - 11:59am

Agree

She had a good game and comes out of this looking good. Keys and Gray look like a pair of divs and have no doubt had both barrels from their bosses.

Let's leave it at that. No need for further repercussions.

0
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 12:22pm

Will they get both barrels from their bosses?

I'm not sure. Assuming their boss is the producer, the producer will clearly get both barrels from someone at Sky.

But for the producer to have a go at Keys and Gray would be pretty futile when:
a) He or she probably knows what they are like and has heard it all before but never bothered to do anything about it.
b) He or she is responsible for not fading their mics down.
c) The producer will be responsible for who is in the studio and in this instance had someone who went and sold the recording to the media.

Gray and Keys may be sexist pigs, but the person "to blame" in this instance is more likely to be their boss.

0
Simon Ford | 24 January 2011 - 12:33pm

Football

is inherently sexist because so few women are involved in it at all levels. Racism in football was quite widespread when there were relatively few black footballers, now it has been virtually eradicated, in this country at least.

0
sirbriancannonhunter | 24 January 2011 - 12:23pm

There is so much shit in the

There is so much shit in the world at the moment, I think the media need to get all worked up about something that they feel they may be able to control.

If we protest about the price of fuel, the government does nothing,
If we protest about university fees, nothing happens,
If we protest about climate change, nothing happens

If we protest about some misogynistic pundit on a sports program, we can get him sacked.
If we protest about some newspaper editor knowing about phone hacking we can get him sacked - from multiple jobs
If we protest about criminal MPs we can get them convicted.

Yay, let's go for the path of least resistance and be seen to be achieving something. Oh and celebrity gossip sells more papers than important life-affecting stuff.

I'm not saying we shouldn't go after these people, but I wish we could put as much effort into important things as we do into this celebrity bashing.

*Sigh* I'm grumpy this morning.

2
VincePacket | 24 January 2011 - 12:29pm

Phone Hacking & MP Crooks

I'd say these are as serious as university fees and the price of fuel but I take your point about celeb bashing as sport.
As someone who oscillates between utter disinterest, bemused incomprehension and vehement hatred of "Our National Game" I'm inclined to shrug and think so-fucking-what-do-you-expect about this pair of useless knobs and pass on to the really serious news of the day like Blair not only denying culpability for the Iraq SNAFU but trying to promote another one with Iran.

0
Mike_H | 24 January 2011 - 1:26pm

That female referee's assistant

did a Reading game recently, she was spot on, barely noticed her at all which is the point I suppose.

Unlike the all male trio we had officiating at last Saturday's game against Hull, they were bloody useless. They were men, professionals, who seemed to have no idea of the off-side rule so are they going to get slagged off and patronised I wonder?

Anyway, some of these pundits should put all their so called knowledge and experience of the game to better use and train up to become refs and linesmen/women. Might give them a much better insight into the game.

Mind you there is one woman I want out of football and that is the awful Blue Peter presenter wannabe who reads out emails in her short skirt perched on the edge of a desk in that goddawful Football League Show on BBC...jeez, where does the BBC get it's pundits and presenters from? And it's nothing to do with the fact she is a woman, just extremely irritating, as are Colin Murray and Gary Lineker and that idiot on ITV and Alan Shearer etc etc...

0
Retro Man | 24 January 2011 - 12:38pm

Haven't they got previous?

I'm sure I've seen a clip from around 15 years ago where Keys and Gray are presenting Monday night football and they show highlights from the Women's FA Cup Final.

The standard of football compared to their male counterparts was pretty woeful, but Keys and Gray are in absolute hysterics describing the action.

I'd say their viewpoints are pretty clear - they think women shouldn't be involved with football and they're sexist. I'm not sure what's gone on constitutes a sackable offence though.

1
Joe R | 24 January 2011 - 12:41pm

What's wrong with being sexy?

Sorry, couldn't help it.

2
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 12:43pm

The things refs have to put up with

This weekend I saw the highlights of the match where she ran the line (which the BBC edited to show how well she did in one particular case) and I also saw the Swedish documentary film "The Referee", about the guy who didn't spot Thierry Henry's handball against Ireland.

I couldn't help reflecting upon the fact that on the occasions when officials make an honest mistake the football world feels justified in either ranting on TV, disputing their right to pursue their professions or sending death threats to them while AT THE SAME TIME accepting that highly paid professional footballers will cheat at every available opportunity, thus going out of their way to make sure that referees make the wrong decision and be backed to the hilt by their managers.

Thought this was particularly interesting in the week that Elliot Saltman was banned from professional golf for three months because he was found to have minutely moved his own ball during a minor tournament in Russia. And here he was reported by his fellow players. I know there's no chance of football ever reaching the standards of sportsmanship that prevails in golf but the contrast in behaviour gives the lie to the idea that the stakes are so high in Premier League football that people can't help but try to deceive the officials.

3
David Hepworth | 24 January 2011 - 1:02pm

I know that the standards

of etiquette are higher in golf, but how is Salman's competitors accusing him of cheating any different from footbalers telling a ref that the opposing forward dived?

Is it particularly sporting to accuse your fellow pro of cheating? You could say the only reason Saltman was reported was because his fellow pros wanted an advantage.

Are the stakes any higher in professional football than in professional golf? In one respect they are less so; if you miss the cut in golf the financial consequences are probably more serious than losing a game of football. There are probably more reasons for the differnce in behaviour between golfers and footballers than the stakes being high.

0
Simon Ford | 24 January 2011 - 1:27pm

The I guess the main difference

Is that instances of cheating happen very rarely in professional golf, so when it occurs it's taken very seriously indeed.

Whereas it happens dozens of times in every game in football, and is encouraged by managers and coaches.

2
Fraser Lewry | 24 January 2011 - 1:37pm

and to add insult to injury, this

is called professionalism in football.

1
Francis Barry-Walsh | 24 January 2011 - 3:47pm

Professionalism in football

George Graham (Then manager of Arsenal IIRC), used to coach his players to contest every decision routinely, to put the officials under pressure from the start.

Fair enough, but then critiscise when an official gets it wrong? I cant see that as anything but hypocrisy.

In many an after match interview, 1 manager says "we wuz robbed2, while the other says, it was a good call.

The next time they play, the decision is the other way, then "The referee is blind/ useless/ wearing the other teams shirt"

And the whole circus continues.

0
jackthebiscuit | 30 January 2011 - 5:38pm

Looking at the reaction to this story...

... I think that there are a large number of football fans who would like to see Gray and, particularly, Keys removed from their posts.

How much of this is due to the incident yesterday, I cannot say, but there is a clear groundswell of opinion that the pair offer very little insight into the game and are long since past their best.

Were they wrong to say what they did yesterday? Of course. Should they be sacked for it? I'll leave that up to others.

What concerns me is that it's part of a growing trend among football pundits, spearheaded by Andy Gray, to attempt to preserve the domestic game's macho heritage.

Witness the sheer number of disastrously bad challenges we've seen in the last two seasons which the pundits (many of whom last played the game in an era where most players were far slower and 3 or 4 kg of solid muscle lighter) regard as "all part of the game". Witness Andy Gray's obsession with snoods, and who's wearing short sleeves and who's wearing long sleeves (recent highlight - proclaiming James Milner to be a "lad" for being the only Man City player to wear short sleeves in training - why does this matter?). Witness Gray's recent comment about Barcelona being unlikely to do it "on a wet Tuesday at Stoke" (a comment I'd have personally sacked him for on the spot).

I've played and watched football all my life. I recognise that there is and will always be a place in the game for hard man antics. But to see them trumpeted by middle aged, paunchy men from the safety of the commentary box is simply embarassing, and demonstrates that they're quite simply out of touch with the modern game at the top level.

Compare and contrast with the guest pundits we see at the World Cup (I'm thinking of the likes of Seedorf, Leonardo and Desailly here), whose knowledge and love of the game is matched by their erudition and ability to avoid speaking in simple minded cliches, and you get the sense that there are viable alternatives out there.

I would absolutely love to see Gray and Keys relieved of their duties and the task handed over to a fit and well Danny Baker, given carte blanche to speak his mind. Obviously, that won't happen, so I'll just dream of James Richardson taking charge instead.

Oh, and finally, as others have said - hats off to Sian Massey. She did a great job on Saturday and hers is a thankless task (as per all officials). The game couldn't live without the likes of Massey. It would be improved without the likes of Gray and Keys.

21
eminentdan1978 | 24 January 2011 - 1:06pm

That is spot on

Couldn't agree more. I love football but increasingly can't stand the macho culture that surrounds it.

The only thing I'd add to what you said is that while "getting stuck in" and "hard tackles" are all part of the "physical side of the game", any time someone comes in with a potential leg-breaker, they're "not that type of player".

2
Joe R | 24 January 2011 - 1:34pm

"G is for...

...the gnarled face of someone who's on ninety thousand pound a week who reckoned he should've had a throw-in"

All of this is why, in the midst of "the most exciting season for years", I've basically given up, leaving me to occasionally "enjoy" football on TV as a form of weird improvised comedy. It's all just hype and bullshit. I promised myself I wouldn't forget Bloemfontein, and I haven't. But some have, and the pretty lights and constant diet of hyperbolic cobblers that all of the broadcasters serve up about football is getting brain-aching for me now. The whole of the previous year has left a pretty nasty taste for me, showing what a mostly empty and vacuous circus the game is at its top level. The latest example of stupidity came on Saturday and the complaints about Piquionne's dismissal for West Ham. Let's see: player already on yellow card goes marching into fans to celebrate, knowing it's bookable. What did they expect?

As has been mentioned, when intelligent analysis comes in, like Seedorf, or Danny Baker's World Cup cameo, thinga are so much better, but the likes of andy Gray and Alan bloody Shearer make want to commit violent crime.

5
illuminatus | 24 January 2011 - 1:47pm

well said

of course we've yet to see Stoke do anything on a balmy european night in Madrid.

2
gaz | 24 January 2011 - 3:23pm

Stoke

Well, I would guess they'd do fairly badly. As they tend to at football clubs which have a pitch wider than the one currently at the Britannia Stadium.

Which includes, well, everywhere except Stoke. Stoke - 100x64m compared with Real Madrid's - 107x72m.

I can't stand Stoke. Not because of gender, though. I watch football for entertainment, myself.

;)

0
Buxton | 24 January 2011 - 5:56pm

don't we

all watch football for the entertainment ;)

0
gaz | 25 January 2011 - 12:15pm

Not the way

Pulis plays it.

1
Molesworth | 25 January 2011 - 12:23pm

but you get

to sing Deliah...

0
gaz | 25 January 2011 - 1:48pm

Gaz - I owe you an apology

Having read through this little bit, I don't think I'm giving a very good account of myself here.

No, I don't like Stoke. But you do and I'm being a nobhead about it by being a bit snide.

So, I'm sorry for being like that.

I'm also sorry you have to tolerate Tony Pulis as a manager. Right, I'm doing it again. Sorry. Again.

0
Buxton | 25 January 2011 - 8:58pm

It doesn't look like it.

Among the problems football has - in my opinion - is the fan who says, "I'd rather we played ugly and won than beautifully and lost".

Well, I wouldn't prefer that.

I appreciate it's not the most valid comparison, but would you prefer your music to be 'ugly' with a total dedication to winning (the chart battle) or would you prefer a record that isn't especially popular, but is beautiful?

It's called 'The beautiful game'. What are these 'fans' saying when they would rather it was ugly?

I do dislike Pulis, but he was a dirty, unskilled player. What do you expect? What irks me, mildly, is when he comes out with palpable nonsense like "Ryan Shawcross isn't that sort of player (who would deliberately go out and injure a player)". He is exactly that sort of player, which is why Pulis picks him as captain. And no, I'm not an Arsenal fan.

If you want some success at any cost and you're not bothered about how they get their oatcakes, so to speak, Stoke are the team for you.

Why are they always last on MotD? Because they're the least entertaining side in the Premiership.

Still, you can't have everything, can you?

1
Buxton | 25 January 2011 - 5:46pm

Fear of football (are Talking Heads making a comeback?)

Pulis is gripped by the fear of football, mistrustful of what might happen should he allow a game to break out and actually allow passing to take place. One can only conclude that the Stoke hierarchy has less faith in their footballers than those of us elsewhere who look upon their squad and think there might be a decent player or two there. But their opportunity to show it is shrouded in paranoia, an unwillingness to let their talents develop lest possession or, worse still, a goal might be lost.

I disagree with you on Ryan Shawcross. I'm not sure that there is a better centre-half of his age and experience in the land - potetially at least. Stoke’s followers call for him to get an England cap. Defensively at least, he seems to merit it. But how can an England manager select a centre-back when he has no idea whether or not he can pass the ball? For under Stoke’s carpet bombing approach – ball comes to Shawcross, boom! Ball approaches Huth, boom! Ball within 50 yards of the Stoke goal, boom! So of Shawcross we have no idea about his touch on the ball, only the certain knowledge he can sledgehammer it 75 yards.

What a waste of a promising talent. It’s also a telling reason as to why England are so inadequate at international level. At international level, the hoof forward is not a tactic, it’s a last resort. The opposition gets hold of the ball and does not give it you back. And if you give them a free-kick, youre in trouble, another reason why Shawcross needs rescuing from Stoke.

Pulis' is a game of unnerving cynicism. It’s a parody of the game, guileless and artless, designed solely to ensure that it has no rhythm, no flow, that the opposition, any opposition, cannot string more than half a dozen passes together to move the rearguard around without somebody smashing the ball into row ZZ. Just to stop the flow.

Football managers often talk about the virtues of winning ugly, and that is true of every sport, successful teams can win a game when not playing well. But winning ugly is the escape route you use on a bad day at the office, when the muse isn't with you, when you’re struggling. Winning ugly should never be the prime objective, not in an industry where people have paid to be entertained? If you have a day when you can’t pass water, ok, batten down the hatches and see it through. But every team should begin with the obligation of searching for the muse from the outset.

But it is easier to destroy than create, to set fire to the Mona Lisa than to paint it in the first place and taking the easy route is something that always appeals to those who lack self confidence, who look at the opposition team sheet and cower from what they might be able to do to you, rather than looking at your team sheet and saying, “We’ve got some players here! Let’s get the ball, express our talent, get a game on”.

Money is such an all powerful God in our game that the ends justify the means to some, that getting three points is all that matters. If one team takes that approach, perhaps we can live with it because we are confronted by it just once a year, unlike the poor Stoke supporters for whom buying a season ticket must be like volunteering to get a migraine every fortnight. But if every team in the land decided that it was the way forward? We would be back to the 1980s, to the days of Wimbledon, to the days of tumbling gates and a game dying on its feet.

A game played in fear is not a game at all. It’s just an extension of the hard lives we all have to lead day after day, in the factory, the office, the dole queue, with the concerns of keeping house and home together. Sport should be there to lift the soul, to make the heart swell, not to be a reminder of the grind. Along with great art, sport is one of our great achievements, one of those things we can point to when we need evidence that civilisation actually took place. Ferocious competition, passionate engagement, the human body extended to the limit, and nobody died. War without the bullets. And all of that is being corrupted, disfigured and destroyed by the lust for money. Football played in fear is not worth the playing.

9
Molesworth | 25 January 2011 - 6:00pm

Bloody hell...

... what a brilliant post.

Sums up something I've been trying to articulate for months.

My only regret is that I don't have more up arrows to give.

1
eminentdan1978 | 26 January 2011 - 1:20pm

I agree to a point

Everything you've said accurately describes Stoke so far but there's a caveat to that (I'm turning into Sid Lowe here).

Pulis has said in the past that when he's got Stoke established as a Premier League club (after around 3 seasons) and they're not expected to go down, he'll change their style of football. He's claimed he actually wants to play a passing game but he's simply doing the best he can with the hand he's been dealt.

Yes, that doesn't negate your points (particularly about Shawcross, which I thought was spot on) and it doesn't make life any easier for your average Stoke supporter, but it'll be interesting to see if he keeps to his word. The fact there are players with lots of footballing talent there suggests he might (Tuncay springs to mind, but he's not a regular starter).

That said, I think Stoke are decent enough that if they did adopt a more purist approach, they'd probably be fine as I'm sure there are three worse teams than them in the division. However, I'm sure no-one involved in the finances of the club would be prepared to take such a risk.

0
Joe R | 26 January 2011 - 1:48pm

In reply (Buxton)

You make a fair point about chart success / winning. But consider this, in the 95 / 96 football season, Newcastle (Under Keegan) played some fabulous football & won fuck all.

In all honesty, what would the NUFC supporters (& players for that matter) would have preffered? A couple of scrappy 0-0's & a trophy, or 4-3 defeats to Liverpool & potless?

Also, music in the era of X factor chart domination. I cant remember when a record I was genuinely passionate about got to number 1.

I couldnt give a toss about what is number one, & I havent for years.

0
jackthebiscuit | 30 January 2011 - 5:50pm

Newcastle

Very exciting under Keegan, absolutely.

I would say that the supporters enjoyed the matches, but not the aftermath.

If you're only interested in the aftermath and not the game, why bother going? Just wait and see what the result was.

That's how I'd view it. I pay to go and watch football and I would rather my team got relegated, provided they play exciting football. Losing games doesn't keep me at home. Playing like a set of frightened rabbits does.

I don't care if the team goes into liquidation, either. There's too much money in football, but it's not like there won't be any to watch if it all goes tits up, is it?

1
Buxton | 30 January 2011 - 6:50pm

I'm always amazed at how the orthodox view on

Special K's first spell at Newcastle - and the 95/96 season in particular - is so seldom challenged.
They may have finished the season "potless" but their 2nd place finish was their highest in the last 50 years. Not only have Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea more or less shared the title bewteen themselves over recent decades, but when one wins another tends to come second.
(And to be parochial: only one Englishman has managed the champions since 1987).
For a team as Newcastle were when Keegan took over (and his real achievement at the club was to prevent an impending relegation before securing an unlikely return to the big time) to find themselves at the summit was a miracle. The team and the manager may be considered to have choked but many a foe down the years has been worn down by Ferguson's relentless determination.
And on the football point I don't think it's about "fantasy football" versus dour rubbish. Rather, what you get with a team like Keegan's Newcastle or Holloway's Blackpool is a side that goes out to take the other guys on and try to win the game rather than the calculated play-it-safe per centage stuff practised by others. When you play that way you do get glorious and unexpected victories and defeats that a more cautious approach might have prevented.....

0
STD | 31 January 2011 - 12:29am

Well said,

would suggest you sign up for the Guardian's football weekly blog chaired by James Richardson with an assortment of journos - very funny and has become unmissable. Their Spain reporter put it very well - "the jury's out until Messi has proved himself at the Britannia stadium". I can only watch MOTD by turning down the sound when the analysis starts - painful.

1
Francis Barry-Walsh | 24 January 2011 - 3:53pm

I used to follow football quite a bit

Now I don't even tune in for the big European club nights. All the hype about Super Sundays, Battle of Britain, and the Battle of Europe has left me jaded. This isn't just about Sky - as other here have pointed out, ITV and the BBC are just as bad. I only really keep up with game through radio; Alan Green may be a pompous ass but at least he is honest enough to admit when a game is boring.

BTW, the last time I saw Richard Keys and Andy Gray broadcast live was at the start of the season,while I grabbed a quick pint waiting for a curry. Can someone please tell me what is going on with that new set? While they ramble on like a couple of old codgers in a post match fug produced by bitter and fags, their producers seem to have spent all their budget on monitors nicked from Minority Report, leaving nothing for the poor old duffers' seating.

0
BigJimBob | 24 January 2011 - 4:43pm

Good question

Last time I saw them, Gray was grappling with a frightened looking Keys, demonstrating how to defend a corner.

It was strangely touching.

0
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 4:46pm

Take A Bow Son...

great post.

1
Retro Man | 24 January 2011 - 5:38pm

Baker/Richardson

Lovely thought, but it's never going to happen. Sky don't want interesting, balanced, articulate people fronting their shows, they want people who can deliver the hyperbole, who can ramp up the excitement for the next SUPER SUNDAY featuring Stoke vs Bolton, who can - and this is the most important bit - convince you that you'd be a fool to be missing out on the "Greatest League In The World" and, in the process, flog some more Sky subscriptions. Keys and Grey are perfect for that.

I am a Sky subscriber. I subscribe for the football. I will, in all likelihood, continue to subscribe, and continue to watch through gritted teeth.

2
Fraser Lewry | 25 January 2011 - 10:52am

You've pretty well

summed it up there Fraser. If you're a mad keen football fan there's little choice.

The contrast between the Spanish football coverage on Sky and the self appointed "Greatest League In The World" is staggering. No hyperbole, just the odd raised eyebrow here and there. One could almost say cerebral (there, said it).

Still, they don't need to shout. They've got Barcelona who at the moment seem to be raising football to an art form.

Does anyone watch ESPN? What is their UK/Italian/German/Dutch coverage like?

0
el toro calvo grande | 25 January 2011 - 11:26am

Sky Sports

I recently subscribed after becoming tired of having to visit the pub or impose on a friend in order to see Liverpool or other interesting games.

I'll probably save money in the long run.

0
Spartacus Mills | 25 January 2011 - 11:32am

I'm also a ESPN subscriber

Their UK coverage looks like Sky on the cheap. Ray Stubbs is a lousy anchor, and Kevin Keegan fills the Jamie Redknapp role without ever looking like he's comfortable or even wants to be there. Rebecca Lowe, who does the tunnel interviews, is the best of a bad lot. I quite like the coverage from the other European leagues, even if the commentary is obviously delivered by someone watching a monitor in a tiny studio in West London - the lack of colour commentary and post-match punditry is quite refreshing.

0
Fraser Lewry | 25 January 2011 - 11:44am

The only ESPN channel I like...

...is ESPN 8, The Ocho.

Cotton McKnight: I'm being told that Average Joe's does not have enough players and will be forfeiting the championship match.

Pepper Brooks: It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.

1
Bob | 25 January 2011 - 11:49am

ESPN tonight

Blackpool v Manchester United. Come on you Tangerines!

0
Beany | 25 January 2011 - 5:36pm

Troglodytes

I can't help feeling that the attitudes displayed by Gray and Keys are symptomatic of the malaise that British national game is in and where it now stands in the world order. That might seem a rather far fetched assertion, but I suspect that their outlook is still quite common in British football culture.

I bet there were a lot of folk out there in the football world who were affronted by seeing the spokesmen for their own views being hauled over the carpet for expressing them.

I just get this feeling that there are still too many people in the game who secretly, and on occasions not so secretly, hanker for a return to the days when there were no foreigners in the game, when hoofing the ball to your big centre forward was tactics, when hatchet men could ply their trade without fear of a red card, and when foul mouthed tirades and flying teacups represented a good half-time talk. Oh yes, and women knew their place - which was definitely nowhere near a football ground love!

1
leach1527 | 26 January 2011 - 1:00pm

That was one of the many depressing things

about the last World Cup. The multitude of cameras, slo-mo and high def, made it painfully apparent that all of the players will cheat all of the time. Referees, of whatever gender, have an utterly thankless task.

1
DavidC | 24 January 2011 - 1:18pm

So Andy Gray is a bit of a knob ?

Who knew ?

5
Doods | 24 January 2011 - 1:22pm

Karren Brady

Given how legend has it that Karren gained a foothold in her industry (leave it there m'learned friends) and year after year of ensuing shrill "girl power" type bollocks, I find it a tad hypocritical that she has the brass monkeys to scream sexism.

Anyone know what the Mirror actually reported about her that was sexist?

Just a load of noise and a sympathy nod to keep her profile high in readiness for the Olympic Stadium bid....

2
Six Dog | 24 January 2011 - 1:23pm

Karren Brady

I can't see why it's hypocritical for Karren Brady to "scream" sexism. I guess the test is if she can substantiate her allegations. And I've no idea what the legend is of how Brady started her career in football but as it's legend and not substantiated fact I can't see that it's relevant.

Gray and Keys have been exposed as boneheads and it will be interesting to see Sky's reaction. If the comments had been racist, they'd be out but sexist, well we'll see. I reckon we might see some relatively unfamiliair faces in their place in the coming months as a shot across Gray and Keys' bows if nothing else...

3
Forrest Gate | 24 January 2011 - 1:53pm

From Karren Brady's Sun column today:

"I have worked very hard to practise what I preach. I'm passionate about women in business.

"When I left Birmingham City Football Club, 75 per cent of the senior management running that team were women.

"At West Ham, the three senior people I've brought in are all women.

"Yet there still exists this old-fashioned view of what a woman's role is within the industry and it infuriates me. I have never experienced sexism on the business side of football".

I'm glad she hasn't. But statements such as that might suggest that some men who have applied for jobs in the organisation have experienced it, at the hands of what she would doubtless defend as "positive discrimination".

Who she may or may not have slept with is irrelevant. But a hiring policy that, prima facie at least, suggests men need not apply does suggest it's hypocritical for her to "scream sexism". Fairness and equality cuts both ways.

1
Molesworth | 25 January 2011 - 8:10pm

Is it possible

that she gave the jobs to the best candidates and ended up with the percentages she did? No one would question a club with 75% of the board made up of men. In fact, most would think they'd been pretty good to get a 25% female board.

0
Leedsboy | 25 January 2011 - 10:05pm

It absolutely is possible

But given that she also notes she is passionate about getting women into business and then talks about three out of three West Ham jobs going to women and that the Birmingham management was 75% female - presumably a major shift from how it was when she moved in - isn't it also posible that it's jobs for the girls? Or is that ok?

0
Molesworth | 25 January 2011 - 10:13pm

That wasn't my point

Mine was really that it's very easy to make an assumption but we don't know the facts. Jobs for the girls is just as discriminatory as jobs for the boys. Jobs should be given on merit.

1
Leedsboy | 26 January 2011 - 12:08am

Should be but aren't

and historically haven't been. That's why there's affirmative action. Created to right historical wrongs but accused of being discrimination in reverse.

3
MyAmericanMate | 26 January 2011 - 1:12pm

Affirmative action

Yes, it can be a good thing. It is discrimination, but not in the negative sense of the word.

0
Rosbif | 26 January 2011 - 1:44pm

Apologies for misunderstanding you

On the latter point, we are as one!

0
Molesworth | 26 January 2011 - 7:01pm

How she gained her foothold in the industry?

Isn't the "legend" of how she gained a foothold in the industry about as valid as the aforementioned theory that having two X chromosomes prevents you from understanding the off-side rule?

7
fortuneight | 24 January 2011 - 2:08pm

Powerful woman...

...in "slept her way to the top rumour" shocker. Jesus. Are we really still at the stage where a woman - especially an attractive woman - can't hold a top job without being dogged by sexual innuendo?

Yes, I said "dogged". Sorry about that.

God knows I'm hardly Valerie Solanas, but I find some people's comfort with phrases like "how [she] gained a foothold in her industry" and the attendant nudge-wink routine a bit shocking. It's bloody 2011. Strikes me that KB's "girl-power type bollocks" might be all too necessary.

7
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 2:10pm

Indeed

Her comments about sexism related to said innuendo about her personal life. In related news, Gray and Keys have been withdrawn from tonight's game.

0
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 2:19pm
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 2:24pm

Whoooooah......

Now, I'm no Germaine Greer and have absolutely no idea whether/how Brady reached her role aside and whether the stuff of rumour, gossip and legend has basis in fact - I accept it's poorly phrased but, I believe the hypocrisy side is a valid criticism.

I don't think that's particularly sexist, hate fuelled or misappropriated but I'll withdraw gracefully from this one...

0
Six Dog | 24 January 2011 - 2:28pm

Well, let's rephrase it the way I understood it.

You said "Given how legend has it that Karren gained a foothold in her industry (leave it there m'learned friends) and year after year of ensuing shrill "girl power" type bollocks, I find it a tad hypocritical that she has the brass monkeys to scream sexism."

I read that as meaning "She's rumoured to have shagged her way into football, and she's always moaning about sexism, therefore it's hypocritical of her to moan about sexism".

Is that not what you meant, because it really seems like you did.

I think a fairer way to represent her might be, "She's rumoured to have shagged her way into football, which probably makes her deeply conscious of football's vicious sexism. As a result, she regularly raises awareness of this same issue, and now she's continuing to do so - entirely consistently - when yet another example arises."

3
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 2:29pm

Ah, you edited while I was posting.

Not to worry, I don't give a fuck about football, but I would HATE to be a woman involved in the sport. I similarly withdraw from the discussion.

0
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 2:30pm

Brady...

Deeply unpleasant whatever her sex.

4
Doug B | 24 January 2011 - 3:13pm

so true

and the 'legend' is well known. usually with these things there is a reason

0
gaz | 24 January 2011 - 3:34pm

Yeah.

And the reason's usually sexism and people going "no smoke without fire, nudge nudge".

Sorry, I said I was out. I really am now.

2
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 3:39pm

'Legend'

You mean like the 'legend' about Arsene Wenger that has absolutely no basis in truth but that makes a 'fun' terrace chant for the Old Trafford charmers to sing?

Brady is an intelligent, attractive woman and a certain type of man can't get his head around the fact that, becuase she's far more successful than he is, she must have shagged her way to the top, otherwise he'd be there and she wouldn't. No 'legend' is required. Just a combination of jealousy and sexism.

10
Red Umpire | 24 January 2011 - 4:01pm

who

brought wegner into it? . a vile chant that david jones gets as well, variations on a theme.

as Brady, best to leave it at that. you have your opinion and i have mine which is nish to do with jealousy and sexism, thanks all the same.

0
gaz | 24 January 2011 - 4:07pm

You'll have to help me understand the difference

Vile chants at Wenger & Jones. Agreed. Groundless bollocks trotted out by the knuckle draggers who insist it's all "just banter".

But Brady, well "usually with these things there is a reason".

Nah.

3
fortuneight | 24 January 2011 - 4:21pm

I guess

what I am saying is one of us knows her, better than the other
Is that any help?

0
gaz | 24 January 2011 - 4:36pm

Not really

.

0
fortuneight | 24 January 2011 - 4:45pm

Wenger

I bought Wenger into it because of the 'legend' that has attached itself to his name (and David Jones's) without a shred of evidence to underpin it, much like the 'legend' about Brady.

So, what we have here is one story based on vile rumours kept alive by thoughtless, idiotic football fans, and another story about Arsene Wenger.

6
Red Umpire | 24 January 2011 - 4:38pm

'Vile'? sex between

'Vile'? sex between consenting adults and you comparing that to Peadophilla.

Idiotic? thoughtless? like i say some of us know Brady more than others

0
gaz | 24 January 2011 - 4:52pm

Oh come on

You know very well that I was not comparing consensual sex between adults with "Peadophilla" (sic.). That's ridculous.

I was comparing a vile chant based on rumour and innuendo with a vile story based on rumour and innuendo. And yes the Brady story is vile because it denigrates her achievements and questions her morals.

And yes, yes, we get that you know Karren Brady better than most of us. Good for you.

5
Red Umpire | 24 January 2011 - 5:09pm

Karen Brady's....

shameless self promotion and nasty slurs against many other team's supporters (even disagreed with by police reports) are the reason I can't stand the woman.
Her morals I couldn't care less about, however her comments in the past have done nothing but stir up rivalries best left alone.
I am very glad I don't support West Ham at the moment. (mind you,so are most people)

3
Doug B | 24 January 2011 - 6:07pm

@ "red umpire"

as long as you are happy.
me, i'll stick with the feminists.

‘I think the term feminist is scary for women, because it means that you’re extreme in some way’

0
gaz | 25 January 2011 - 1:51pm

Me?

I'm as happy as Andy Gray and Richard Keys in a private members' club swapping anecdotes about the good old days.

"Feminism is [just] the radical notion that women are people." (Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler)

1
Red Umpire | 25 January 2011 - 3:50pm

you see

Brady as a paragon of virtue, I see her a bullshitting hypocrite.

still, Gray's gone! only his odious sidekick to go. So not a bad day all round.

now where's my ironing.

0
gaz | 25 January 2011 - 5:43pm

No I don't

I certainly wouldn't want her near my club, but that's because of her style and actions, not her gender.

I do see her as a successful woman who has made her way to the top. She may have used all sorts of nefarious means to do so, but then so do many, many men and they're never ever accused of having slept their way there. Nor are there 'legends' which basically say that they don't deserve to be where they are because they only got there by offering themselves to someone in the food chain above them.

But I'll stop now. Enjoy your ironing.

3
Red Umpire | 25 January 2011 - 5:59pm

best

you do because you still ain't got a danny what you're talking about.
From the start for me it was about Brady, god knows what 'men' have got to do with it. I'd dig them out equally as well.

you carry on with your cliched crusade. Ironing done, now the cooking

3
gaz | 25 January 2011 - 6:08pm

Yes but...

...there's no shortage of bullshitting hypocrites in the world. And yet when it's a prominent woman, especially in a male-dominated arena, you can bet your bottom dollar something sexual will be at the top of the list of her perceived faults.

Nobody's claimed she's a paragon. But her alleged sexual conduct is irrelevant to her professional life, and would not be raised if she were a man. It's the oldest misogynist trick in the book: heavily imply the idea of "whore" in regard to a woman who's got a bit above herself and let gossip and fear do the rest.

1
Bob | 25 January 2011 - 6:04pm

another one

who doesnt know Brady and what you've just said in my case is bollocks.

1
gaz | 25 January 2011 - 6:15pm

Might be worth calming down

This debate seems to be around the term 'legend'. This would normally suggest that is is folklore with little supporting evidence. You seem to have more knowledge of Ms Brady than the term 'legend' would suggest you had on your original post so the responses appear to me to be around this misunderstanding.

Mind you, you may well want to tell me that's bollocks as well (although I did look up legend in the dictionary so I am confident).

5
Leedsboy | 25 January 2011 - 7:32pm

SPOT. ON. UPPED.

That is all.

0
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 4:14pm

Brady might well be

a hugely successful businesswoman, very intelligent etc etc. But what she has been doing of late to undermine Avram Grant belies that opinion, at least in relation to her current job.

Memories of her appearance on BBC Radio WM about a decade ago when she asked Ron Atkinson if having his son in the Villa team was awkward also brings into question her knowledge on the subject. She was referring to Dalian Atkinson.

2
Molesworth | 24 January 2011 - 5:42pm

That story

I've always assumed it to be apocryphal, but you actually heard it?

0
Fraser Lewry | 24 January 2011 - 5:48pm

Tis true

every word. If memory serves it was a Friday pre-match phone-in. A bit longer than a decade ago actually - time flies doesnt it? Probably wasnt that long after Sullivan & the Golds had bought Birmingham, so 1993, 1994 time. But yes, it's a true story.

2
Molesworth | 24 January 2011 - 6:00pm

Karen Brady

She achieved her initial position of lofty power by the special expedient of being the daughter of the bloke who owned the club. No sexism involved with her, just a different type of -ism. One involving the letters N,E,P,O and T.

0
Lenny Law | 25 January 2011 - 7:15pm

Her father is Terry Brady

who was chairman at Swindon and a dirctor at Portsmouth. He had nothing to do with Birmingham City, Lenny. The owners of Birmingham were the Golds and David Sullivan, a man who doesn't so much walk as slither.

0
Molesworth | 25 January 2011 - 7:28pm

I stand corrected

And retract my allegations regarding nepotism.

0
Lenny Law | 25 January 2011 - 8:36pm

Blimey...

...I'm going to come across all Guardian reader (guilt as charged m'lud) but...

These two are arguing that this woman is not up to the job purely on the basis that she is a woman. And by that logic this is not a job for any woman. That sound preposterous to me

Does that lessen their credibility to do the job they are paid for? If their analysis of this footballing issue is so flawed, then why should I assume that they know anything else about the game.

4
File-Under-Water | 24 January 2011 - 1:42pm

Sky news Coverage

Are Sky news endless repeating this snippit of conversation as they did with Gordon Brown's comments during the election campaign?

2
alf2019 | 24 January 2011 - 1:54pm

To be fair

they do seem to be featuring it pretty heavily. Some of the screens in our office show rolling news channels - and Sky is majoring on it and broke the news about the suspension first. Currently, they are covering the Moscow bomb blast more heavily which in the overall scheme of things is kind of more important.

0
Ozmium | 24 January 2011 - 6:03pm

I'd love to join in this discussion,

but I'm far too busy sleeping my way to the top.

*sighs*

A woman's work is never done...

11
Gauntlet | 24 January 2011 - 2:31pm

"Done".

1
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 2:34pm

I tried sleeping my way to the top

But kept being demoted.

8
Fraser Lewry | 24 January 2011 - 2:35pm

Do David and Mark...

...make you work in a different room?

"Hey, Heppo. How YOU doin'?"

2
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 2:37pm

Christ on a bike

with a 3 year old son with chicken pox and his twin sister with a cold, if I could just get a nights sleep I reckon I could get nearer the top.

0
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 2:41pm

No job for a woman

You could say that at the moment refereeing in professional men's football is no job for a woman because physical intimidation of the officials is a key part of the game in a way it's not in, say, rugby. Maybe that could be the best argument for the introduction of female officials.

1
David Hepworth | 24 January 2011 - 2:42pm

Indeed

If every game was refereed by my mum, all misbehaviour would cease.

2
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 2:45pm

My mum

doesn't understand the offside rule. Neither does my Dad though.

0
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 2:57pm

neither do

most 'experts'.

1
gaz | 24 January 2011 - 3:02pm

Offside

In fairness, given the fact that the lines'people' have to be able to tell exactly where two simultaneously occurring events are happening, often over a distance in excess of 50 metres apart, I don't see how it's possible for any human being to do that with any degree of accuracy. Certainly not in comparison to a camera. Or two cameras, ideally.

Football is a game which often hinges on one goal. One hotly contested goal, often. Bearing this in mind, would it really be so hard to refer a goal to a fourth official with a video link?

I think pundits are against technology because, as pointed out by the good people on this board, most of what they talk about are 'dubious' decisions. Get rid of most doubt and they'll have nothing to talk about, because most of them are hopelessly inarticulate. Alan Shearer almost exploding because a referee followed the rules and gave a player a second yellow? Them's the rules, Alan. If you don't like them, complain to the FA, don't criticise a referee for doing their job.

Have you ever watched that Sky Sports program where football fans ring up a pundit to discuss their views? Crikey. 3 hours of people who can barely string a sentence together - 'talking'. Nice one.

3
Buxton | 24 January 2011 - 6:07pm

Neither did that

sodding ref - Mr Kitbadjin - at the 1975 European Cop Final; a male and a bastard !

0
Francis Barry-Walsh | 24 January 2011 - 3:44pm

1975 EC final

Not trying to wind you up here.

I think we have been over this before, however, I honestly think that Leeds blew it on the night.

When has a referee ever changed his mind? It was a lousy decision (or 2), however they should have just got on with it.

Shades of England at the last world cup.

I think that most teams are happy when they can blame defeat on an official, rather than their own shortcomings.

0
jackthebiscuit | 30 January 2011 - 11:21pm

Keys & Gray show

According to Sky News, Andy Gray and Richard Keys have been 'stepped down' of their duties for tonight's Bolton v Chelesa match.

0
Native | 24 January 2011 - 2:52pm

finally!

I can watch sky sports

1
gaz | 24 January 2011 - 3:01pm

The most dispiriting thing about the whole affair

is that the comment was so lame. It's like the whole Frankie Boyle "children with Down's syndrome are badly dressed" thing or the Daily Mail's "all asylum seekers are trying to fiddle benefit/steal your job/rape your wife, etc. It's just such a hackneyed thing to say - ill-thought through, boring and based on out-of-date stereotypes.

In the past there probably were more women who didn't understand the offside rule but that's because football - like many aspects of society - wasn't as inclusive as it is now. Things change.

What Keys and Gray said wasn't really offensive, it just made them look like silly, sniping schoolboys annoyed because the teacher let the girls use their changing room.

4
hazeyjane | 24 January 2011 - 3:16pm

isn't

Gray suing the NOTW?

0
gaz | 24 January 2011 - 4:08pm

Would it have not been better

To get a cart load of referees in the Sky Sports studio, kit them up with all the hi-tech gadgets that Wallace & Gromit use and have them analyse all the mistakes that Keys & Gray make during a game.

Having a night off, still being paid, hardly seems punishment.

1
Beany | 24 January 2011 - 4:13pm

I'm confused

are we saying that women do understand the offside rule now? Because that's not my experience. It was a lame joke made off air. Who is offended by this? Really, who is actually offended by the comment? If a woman on the telly was to make a comment pointing out that men wont ask for directions it wouldn't bother me in the slightest, I'd think they had made a silly joke and feel embarrassed for them for having said it, but I'd still accept that there is a general truth contained with it.

Keys has come out of this looking like the knob that he is. I'd have sacked him years ago but only for the fact that he's shit at the job.

0
Georgedivided | 24 January 2011 - 4:31pm

Presumably

women who are employed to know the offside rule i.e assistant referees know it.

Which contradicts Keys and Gray's assertion.

3
doubleyoubee | 24 January 2011 - 4:37pm

Exactly my point.

0
Georgedivided | 24 January 2011 - 4:48pm

Is it?

You said it's your experience that women DON'T understand the offside rule.

Would that not preclude them from working as assistant referees?

0
doubleyoubee | 24 January 2011 - 4:56pm

I don't have the figures to prove anything, but

if i had to guess at the percentage of women who don't understand the offside rule I would say it's in the high 80% area. The assistant referee, as you would expect does know how the offside rule works and this is why keys looks like a knob.

Re the comment made: There would have been hundreds of thousands of men all over the country saying something similar to themselves or their friends. It's a little sad, but nothing to take offence at.

0
Georgedivided | 24 January 2011 - 5:15pm

Just because

hundred of thousands of people do/think/say something, doesn't mean it's ok.

8
Joe R | 24 January 2011 - 5:20pm

I think I understand the offside rule

But there's a world of difference between my level of knowledge and the professionalism required to apply that rule in a Premier League setting is massive. That's what's so irritating about the pundits' comments. Anyone who's put in the time and dedication which is involved in being an official in professional sport deserves a bit of respect.

4
David Hepworth | 24 January 2011 - 5:25pm

I would hazard a guess

that the percentage of men who ACTUALLY understand it would be similarly high.

0
doubleyoubee | 24 January 2011 - 5:26pm

Having now heard the clip,

which I hadn't realised was on you tube yesterday, I would like to retract my comments made previously. There was clearly not even the slightest bit of 'humour' involved and it's clear they both believe that women have no place in football. I feel slightly unclean for having defended them. I hope Keys follows Gray out the door.

3
Georgedivided | 25 January 2011 - 8:57pm

I'm not "offended" by it, per se

There's little that actually really offends me and I certainly don't get offended on other people's behalf.

I have no problem with women saying men don't ask for directions, but this is a situation in the workplace. In your place of work, if someone suggested that someone was incapable of doing their job simply because of their gender, you'd expect there to be consequences. This incident - and the one I mentioned earlier with them laughing at the Women's FA Cup Final - suggest that Keys and Gray are sexist and genuinely believe women have no place in football.

1
Joe R | 24 January 2011 - 5:04pm

Maybe all the furore

will at least make Richard Keys & Andy Gray stop for a minute and think about what they were saying.

Which is essentially this: a professionally trained and qualified woman, with a great deal of experience, who has been promoted to the top of her trade, can't do her job because she's a woman.

Now I don't know if Richard or Andy have adult daughters (they might well have).

Let's just imagine one of them had a daughter who had studied law at university, and through diligence, intelligence and hard work, had become a barrister.

Now picture Richard or Andy overhearing two male barristers talking about their daughter and saying there was no place for women barristers, it was a joke her even being allowed to practice law, and hey, aren't women ridiculous for considering there was any form of 'sexism' in the workplace.

Of course, they'd be perfectly happy to dismiss that as a bit of 'banter'. Wouldn't they?

8
drakeygirl | 24 January 2011 - 5:04pm

I'm sure they'd just be proud

That their daughters had got themselves a little job.

1
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 5:07pm

Just as long

as it didn't affect their ability to iron dad's smalls.

0
BigJimBob | 24 January 2011 - 5:11pm

Molehill meets mountain.

0
Georgedivided | 24 January 2011 - 5:17pm

TMFTL

Before anyone else says it

1
Martin Simmonds | 24 January 2011 - 5:33pm

Yeah, you're right

People complaining about not getting equal opportunities based solely on gender is just a pain, isn't it? I mean, what do these people want? Women given the same employment opportunities and - God forbid - wages as men; imagine!

5
Joe R | 24 January 2011 - 5:38pm

Absolutely

Spot on.

I'm staggered that these comments are being laughed off in some quarters as harmless lad's banter.

1
Richard K | 24 January 2011 - 11:10pm

Well

why the bloody hell did you say it Richard? Come on spill the beans how much of a knob is Andy G really? Good of you to join us on your "night off" by the way.

1
Dave Amitri | 24 January 2011 - 11:24pm

Oh no!

busted...

the answer though is, he's a cretinous buffoon.

1
Richard K | 24 January 2011 - 11:47pm

I run an U12's football team

and most, if not all the dads who offer to run the line (offer being a bit of a stretch as no one really wants to do it) don't know the offside rule. I have yet to have a mum volunteer.

I think this suggests that, probably the only people who know the offside rule are those who have taken the courses and passed the exam. Certainly most players don't understand it judging by the faces they pull when they're given offside. And that is processional players not U12's. They just look bemused.

0
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 5:12pm

That's the real problem with modern footballers.

There's far too many processional players. ;-)

0
drakeygirl | 24 January 2011 - 5:13pm

You leave

Christian Poulsen out of this.

0
doubleyoubee | 24 January 2011 - 5:22pm

That's so typical of a woman

Pick up on a typo. I can't help that I was trying to multi-task.

0
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 6:23pm

I'll chip in

The general mood is that they are a couple of knobs and a change is probably due anyway and I agree.
But I really do think that they have to be fired for this simply because there will be a rise in the use of women in key positions in football and as such anything they say in support will not be believed and will only come across as trite and toeing the line.
Get them off the show and inject some new blood.
I suggest Gaby Logan presenting and Germaine Greer providing the analysis

1
jimmyshoes01 | 24 January 2011 - 5:12pm

Does it matter?

I couldn't care less about whether or not I'm hearing the real thoughts of football pundits. They're just there to fill the gaps between ads.

0
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 5:17pm

the real question is....

does anyone understand the offside law? I'm blowed if I do

0
cradlerock | 24 January 2011 - 5:25pm

Really?

I understand the offside law and I'd say that all pundits do too. The tricky thing is being able to make the right call during live action. I often shout 'offside!', only for a replay to prove me wrong. That's the problem officials have: they only have a split second and their eyes. Andy Gray (and those at home) have myriad cameras which can be viewed repeatedly and at leisure. That's why pundits' criticism of officials often gets on my tits.

0
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 5:30pm

See that?

Understands the offside law AND has tits....

Are you reading this Andy Gray?!?

2
doubleyoubee | 24 January 2011 - 5:34pm

Man boobs

Unfortunately.

1
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 5:36pm

I've heard them called

He-vage.

0
doubleyoubee | 24 January 2011 - 5:38pm

Jammy sod

I usually have to buy chocolate and flowers

4
doubleyoubee | 24 January 2011 - 5:37pm

With that kind of incentive

who wouldn't?

0
fortuneight | 24 January 2011 - 5:59pm

What is this "offside rule" thing?

And as a man I'm finding this assumption that we understand what that is a little bit sexist.

At this point I should say that I have worked in media. The kind of behaviour Gray and Keys have been indulging in? It's not uncommon in sports departments. That is all.

0
ganglesprocket | 24 January 2011 - 6:56pm

I just read this entire thread

and now I'm going to read a bedtime story to my daughter and try to convince myself that everything will have changed by the time she is starting her adult life *deep sigh*

8
katyg | 24 January 2011 - 7:23pm

I just console myself...

...with the thought that most of the holders of such Neanderthal views about women are probably knocking on a bit and will be either dead or in homes by the time my girls are carving out their careers. Chin up, Katy!

4
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 8:04pm

I'm hoping my daughter

just treats ignorant people with sexist views them with the utter contempt they deserve. I will do all I can to help her with this world view.

4
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 8:48pm

My daughter

Reads Valerie Solanas at bedtime and got sent home from nursery for trying to remove the caretakers testicles with some pruning shears.

Do I win?

1
Spartacus Mills | 24 January 2011 - 9:28pm

Not

If she is over 16 and works at a plant retailer. But yes if she is under 4.

1
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 9:54pm

I like to believe you're right, Bob

but less than 2 years ago, I was working for a Neanderthal boss. There were ten of us Technology Managers working for the same boss. Two of us were female.

Every day, I got to delight in comments like this.

"We need someone on the team to organise a card for Sam's new baby. Hannah, Alison, would one of you do it? You're female so you've got the soft skills".

[when Neanderthal boss was talking about the sci-fi show Firefly, and I joined in with a comment about Joss Whedon]
"What? Do you know about sci-fi? You can't know about sci-fi. You're a woman. Women don't understand sci-fi. Who's that Joss Whedon guy you're talking about anyway?"

That's pretty mild, I know, but comments like that many times a day get pretty wearing. In a workplace, it's just not on.

Oh and plus HILARIOUS sexual quips about my then 3-year old daughter and HYSTERICAL jokes about my father's death. The guy was a real peach. He'd bitch about senior female executives in the company constantly, and claim that they all wanted to sleep with him... uuurrgghhh.

Scariest of all, this guy was in his early 40s. I really didn't think they made them like that anymore.

4
Hannah | 24 January 2011 - 10:47pm

Jesus. How horrible.

Reading upthread a bit, I think he might have posted here. ;-)

What a twunt though. Don't know how you didn't arrange to have him cemented into the foundations of a new sports centre.

0
Bob | 24 January 2011 - 11:06pm

Hannah just read your sexist boss story

A friend of a friend was working as a management consultant for a firm in Edinburgh about a decade ago. He was asked to provide protocols for a lot of the routines that were carried out within a firm by the Head of Exports. So this guy wrote some stuff down like: "Manager A receives an order from China. He/She makes a software entry on this new entry and then he/she contacts accounts..etc" So after he submits his first draft the (male) Head says; "this he/she is a bit clumsy" "yes, but it COULD be a male or female officer." says consultant. "Yes but it is grammatically traditional to employ He as a general pronoun in these cases" says Head. So my acquaintance rewrites it with "He." He submits it and next day he gets a call of complaint from the Head. "It still doesn't read right" "why" "let me read you a passage: "Manager A finishes with order he sends the paper work to his secretary. He then writes up the order....you can't have that secretary being a HE, can you really?" The FOAF, laughed in his face and the Bossman still didn't get it.

2
BigJimBob | 25 January 2011 - 6:20pm

Me Dad

who used to be a referee (but I'm legitimate, who knew?!) just said "it's not an offside 'rule', its laws that govern the game". That is why people hate refs, isn't it? And why I despise football.

I see that the two dicks (although only one Richard) were defended on Sky News by Jon Gaunt. And he wouldn't be biased\bitter about a similar incident in his failure of a media career would he?

1
DogFacedBoy | 24 January 2011 - 8:20pm

Jon Gaunt

would eat his own faeces if he felt it would help his media profile. Mind you, he talks it every time he opens his mouth.

3
Leedsboy | 24 January 2011 - 8:50pm

Agree...

Shameful 'performance' on Five Live last night and Sky News earlier today. Playing to his constituency, with a smirk. Ugh.

0
Happy Castle | 24 January 2011 - 11:22pm

The thing about dinosaurs...

...is that they are extinct. Time's up for Gray and Keys methinks.

0
Mr Sparks | 24 January 2011 - 9:00pm

It's great

that we're all giving our support to the lady who's worked her way to the top of a male dominated profession by overcoming more than an off air jibe between two stupid men who should know better. I bet she has some stories to tell because she must have started with Sunday morning football between hungover Neanderthals and I'm sure she even gets some stick now. I watched on Sunday and she was last out join the teams and officials in the tunnel and the ref and Wolves captain definitely found something funny about that, I wonder what was said and if anyone had their mobile handy to record it. I'd like to hear what she thinks about all the fuss which means her job will be even more difficult and I would have made Keys and Gray interview her this evening and discuss where she got so many decisions right on Saturday. No doubt she would have handled it with aplomb and left them squirming in front of their fancy monitors. Suspending them means the can swerve the issue, they're all idiots except her.

5
Dave Amitri | 24 January 2011 - 9:58pm

Keys has taken the Brown Approach

He has phoned the assistant ref to apologize - according to Sky News,

0
BigJimBob | 24 January 2011 - 11:40pm

Women!

Don't get involved with things you know nothing about. Listen! There's a baby crying. Off you go.

0
ChaosandMorphine | 25 January 2011 - 1:20am

My FPO

can't really see what all the fuss is about and reckoned that the best punishment for them would have been to make them do the show last night and apologise live on air - a bit of humiliation and humble pie seems appropriate given that no-one died.

Interesting to hear last night as well that her next appearance will be at Crewe tonight. Just our luck. I bet she forgets the offside rule when it counts tonight.

Only ever seen one lady lino at Crewe in the past. She gave an awful decision and our fullback got a straight red for calling her a fucking bitch. Mind you, if I had a pound for every crap decision given by a chap I'd be very wealthy.

1
el toro calvo grande | 25 January 2011 - 9:58am

Timeline

1. On 18 January football pundit Andy Gray brought legal proceedings for phone-hacking against the News of the World.

2. On 23 January Andy Gray and Richard Keys - employed as presenters by BSkyB - were recorded, without their knowledge and by parties unknown, making sexist comments about a female linesman and West Ham vice chairman Karren Brady. Within hours the tape of their conversation was in the public domain.

3. Karren Brady is employed as a columnist by The Sun.

4. On 24 January The Times dedicated 40% of its front page to the Lineswomangate story.

5. On 25 January The Sun contained seven different stories, angles and sidebars about the affair - including Karren Brady's column.

[It's probably nothing, but check who owns/controls The News of the World, BSkyB, The Sun and The Times, just on the off chance there might be a connection - Ed.]

5
Archie Valparaiso | 25 January 2011 - 10:39am

I take your point Archie

but had they not made their foolish comments in the first place, they couldn't have been recorded and "stitched up".

0
doubleyoubee | 25 January 2011 - 10:50am

WB

Would you be happy for every conversation you'd had with a friend to be recorded and made available to your employer, family, the general public?

I wouldn't. Let he who is without sin...etc

1
Spartacus Mills | 25 January 2011 - 10:52am

Yes

I'm a lovely fella and a credit to my Mammy.

0
doubleyoubee | 25 January 2011 - 10:58am

Cool

Well, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, eh?

0
Spartacus Mills | 25 January 2011 - 11:03am

* Checks under desk

for Lucifer Sam's listening devices *

Exactly.

2
doubleyoubee | 25 January 2011 - 11:21am

Sky have form

When Gordon Brown got stuffed in Rochdale-bigoted-woman-Gate he was actually wearing a Sky TV microphone but the Labour wallahs thought there was an agreement with Sky that once Brown was back in the limo comments would be off-limits. Sky chose not to honour this. They are ruthless people, and they have their own agenda.

1
Doods | 25 January 2011 - 11:16am

There is a good chance

that the parties unknown were Sky employees though. Given that they were mic'd up and in the studio. Question is, did they do it because of a dislike of Sky or Keys/Gray? Or did they do it just for the money?

0
Leedsboy | 25 January 2011 - 11:49am

Interesting.

Potential abuse of power there. Potential illustration of news international internal politics.

Gray remains a bell end though.

0
ganglesprocket | 25 January 2011 - 10:51am

A very level-headed take on this from Lynne Truss

You can read it here. I particularly like her closing remarks:

Personally I'm amazed that the overheard conversation between Richard Keys and Andy Gray didn't catch them saying anything worse. I am quite sure they are too.

1
Rosbif | 25 January 2011 - 2:35pm

If they get the bullet...

...I can see Keys having only the choice of TalkSport or ESPN, after a period of time. But Andy Gray, like him or loathe him, has a solid reputation among TV pundits. Although the BBC couldn't touch him, ITV would and it would be brave for Sky to get rid of him. Live games would feel his absence, and I reckon that's Sky's opinion.

0
kb | 25 January 2011 - 2:52pm

Let's just replace them with...

...other members of their respective families. I'm thinking Alicia and Dorian.

0
Bob | 25 January 2011 - 3:01pm

Andy Gray sacked

according to BBC 5. I would put a small wager that he may EVENTUALLY end up as a BBC 5 summerizer, via say Channel 5 telly.

0
BigJimBob | 25 January 2011 - 5:24pm

Crikey

Ludicrous over-reaction. The welfare state couldn't cope if everyone with an unpleasant opinion lost their job. Can anyone outside of the Islington bubble honestly say they've not heard worse crack than this from a friend or family member?

3
Spartacus Mills | 25 January 2011 - 5:27pm

I suppose the difference is

that friends and family comments don't end up broadcast before millions, and aren't made whilst acting in a professional capacity.

Keys has apologised and seems to be staying. Maybe Gray wouldn't. Is it payback for suing NOTW? Sky are saying there was an earlier incident in Dec 2010 and that's why he's gone. Hmmmmm.

1
fortuneight | 25 January 2011 - 5:40pm

I think it's the accumulation of events

There's Grey's "banter" with Keys. Then he says more of the same kind of thing on video talking to a touchline reporter at the same game. And this is after apparently being warned in December over an incident in which he asked Sky's Charlotte Jackson to assist him getting dressed, so to speak.

0
Fraser Lewry | 25 January 2011 - 5:47pm

Ah well

If there are a catalogue of incidents, including one aimed directly at a female colleague, then that puts a different spin on things.

I wonder if he'll do one of those Jade Goody / Ron Atkinson-style documentaries in which he meets some actual women and grovels?

0
Spartacus Mills | 25 January 2011 - 5:51pm

The clip in question

0
fortuneight | 25 January 2011 - 6:12pm

On first glance I read that as 'growls'!

Silly fecker.

0
Mr Fade | 26 January 2011 - 12:02am

Sky News

keep showing a clip of him in December making a lewd comment to a female presenter but I can't make out what the hell he's saying. Apparently this is the final straw. So Sky have obviously been trawling through the office Xmas tape.

And said reporter who joined in with that touchline banter has been suspended. Its all kicking off, if you pardon the pun

0
DogFacedBoy | 25 January 2011 - 5:49pm

Sexist footie expert Vs phone-tapgate?

Woah, they seem to be part of the same story. Wonder what other controversy can be pulled in?

0
BigJimBob | 25 January 2011 - 5:59pm

So why didn't

they sack Gray in December? I'd have thought that trying to wave your cock at a female presenter would be more of a sackable offence.

1
Molesworth | 25 January 2011 - 6:52pm

gray

take a bow son, take a bow.

Done up like a kipper

0
gaz | 25 January 2011 - 5:50pm

Pundits who make sexist comments?

You don't save those

1
Ahh_Bisto | 25 January 2011 - 8:54pm

This just in....

and woohoo....what a way to lose my picture posting cherry.....tikaboo son....

5
el toro calvo grande | 25 January 2011 - 5:51pm

Well...

...when you sup with the devil, use a long spoon. If Andy Gray was suing the Big Boss you would think he would not give Sky a single excuse to get rid of him.

0
Doods | 25 January 2011 - 6:47pm

i think archie up there has a point ...

it seems unlikely that keys & gray have changed their personalities in any significant way while employed by sky, so it seems *coincidental* that some recorded examples of pinheaded, adolescent sexism bubble to the surface all of a sudden - leading to the question, why now?

(i mean, if andy gray was making jokes about young female presenters tucking his shirt in - her hands are near my willie, lol - in december 2010, i'd be surprised if it wasn't happening in december 2009, 2008, 2007 etc) ...

2
Glenbervie | 25 January 2011 - 11:25pm

From the Independent's report on Gray's sacking:

Meanwhile, it has emerged that the Football Association switchboard was inundated with calls yesterday from women enquiring about becoming officials.

The revolution has begun...

0
Gauntlet | 25 January 2011 - 10:52pm

Gray and Keys are utter p****s.

What that makes the sinister despot of the evil empire I don't know.

0
Mr Fade | 26 January 2011 - 12:07am

Keys

There is a video doing the rounds this morning of Keys asking Jamie Redknapp whether he'd be interested in having intercourse with the woman they're discussing. He also states that he could imagine him doing so.

Or, in layman's terms, he says 'would you smash it?' and 'I can see Redknapp hanging out the back of it'.

P45 for him too soon, I'd imagine.

0
Spartacus Mills | 26 January 2011 - 11:22am

Wow

That's some footage. "Banter" is one thing, but there's something truly odious about Keys in that clip.

0
Fraser Lewry | 26 January 2011 - 11:31am

I agree

It's in a different league than the other stuff. He's obviously trying too hard as well. Because nobody who speaks like that would also use the word 'potty'.

Souness just looks embarrassed. He even tries to kick him (old habits...etc)

0
Spartacus Mills | 26 January 2011 - 11:35am

Trying too hard

Very much so. He reminds me of an awkward kid at school trying to ingratiate himself with a cool clique, while at the same time completely misunderstanding what makes the clique cool in the first place.

0
Fraser Lewry | 26 January 2011 - 11:43am

Have you showed it

to Mark Ellen and David Hepworth? I'm sure they'de be pleased to see their old publication getting a mention.

0
Spartacus Mills | 26 January 2011 - 12:44pm

Richard Keys IS Alan Partridge

0
DogFacedBoy | 26 January 2011 - 8:58pm

Real eye opener

I always imagined Keys to be a decent skin.

0
doubleyoubee | 26 January 2011 - 11:57am

Quite agree

My post below may give the impression that I condone it all - especially the appalling "smash it" clip. I don't. I don't talk about women like that and feel uncomfortable when other men do. But if water-cooler conversations among employees - what these clips are the equivalent of - are now to be monitored for "appropriateness" and "being in keeping with corporate values", let's be honest here: that's most of us stuffed.

2
Archie Valparaiso | 26 January 2011 - 12:32pm

And yet...

Glad as I am to see the back of Andy Gray, and tired as I am of Keys's fundamentalist Partridgery, I can't help thinking that this is all getting a bit silly now.

Stop the presses! Men objectify women when talking among themselves! They are crude! They are disrespectful! Ban this vile trade!

But it's a sports desk, for crying out loud - a private conversation among men working on a channel that isn't just male-dominated, it's so structurally male-oriented that they don't even consider it worth mentioning the number of women viewers they get when they're pitching to ad-agency media buyers. (PDF link.)

An article (yet another) in The Guardian today includes this pearl from an anonymous female worker at Sky Sports: "There's this blokey vibe and it's like a lads' club," said one. Now can you imagine a quality newspaper printing a complaint from an anonymous male worker at, say, Marie Claire that "There's this girly vibe and it's like a women's club"?

I mean, like, duh.

0
Archie Valparaiso | 26 January 2011 - 12:13pm

You're right, of course

And you get the same blokey vibe from The Guardian's own football podcast (albeit with a heavy dose of "and we're being ironic here, listeners"). Wouldn't it be nice though if this male-dominated sport recognised that many women and girls enjoy the game as much as us chaps. Certainly when I go to matches in England I'm struck by the number of women/girls that are in the crowd, as compared to when I first started to watch football in the late 60s/70s. I think a lot of good could come out of the Gray/Keys affair.

Your link to the Sky Sports Advertisers document was very revealing. Maybe they're not the only organisation that needs to update it's advertising material to reflect the increasing female audience. http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/advertisers/reader

0
Handsome.P.Wonderful | 26 January 2011 - 12:32pm

Two issues are now being confused

One is the belittling of the female match official, which betrayed an attitude that is antediluvian and just downright wrong when expressed by people at the top end of a sports-channel's personnel. No arguments there. That's sexism. But it's now moved on to include as reprehensible how many men (and, in my experience, also of "the liberal and creative professions" almost as many women) talk among themselves. That's not sexism; it's sexuality. Sexuality at its least edifying and, when revealed in public, its most embarrassing and depressing, yes (Keys's "Did you smash it?" is, like "been there?" a depressingly typical objectifying remark), but I think we should be careful not to confuse it with harassment or discrimination, which is all that should be within any employer's remit to punish.

1
Archie Valparaiso | 26 January 2011 - 12:47pm

Fair points

but that kind of behaviour is very uncomfortable to watch and therefore work with. If the culture of a particular workplace allows that kind of behaviour without any sanction, then it is plainly a place where a number of people would feel uncomfortable and, therefore,potentially excluded, from.

Keys apparently gives new starters a hard time for the fun of it. This kind of behaviour, and the reprehensible conversations are not something an employer could knowingly allow during work time.

0
Leedsboy | 26 January 2011 - 1:13pm

No arguments there

But when I ask myself, "Is the world now a better place because we've seen Richard Keys in all his icky glory enquiring of Jamie Redknapp whether he'd 'smashed it'?" then the answer is a resounding no.

0
Archie Valparaiso | 26 January 2011 - 1:24pm

True enough

but at least we have the scant crumb of comfort that he's a lot less likely to do it again now that his behaviour has been made public.

0
Leedsboy | 26 January 2011 - 2:53pm

I was unaware of the 'smashing' term in question

up to now. I have however occasionally heard the use of 'it' in place of 'her' and (in Irvine Welsh speak) 'I'd love tae hing oot o' hur' from Finchy / Begbie types. Not the most pleasant of phrases really...

0
DougieJ | 28 January 2011 - 10:28pm

Advertising

The text reflects what we know of the stereotypical Word reader, and it's a stereotype that's as true today as it ever was - a brief look at our subs data suggests that the vast, overwhelming majority of subscribers are still male. And remember, it's a page aimed at advertisers, and that's what they want to know: who is the typical reader? Who am I reaching?

0
Fraser Lewry | 26 January 2011 - 12:43pm

I understand

...that a magazine has to define its target audience to reach advertisers. It just seems a bit funny when I know there are quite a few women who enjoy The Word as much as the blokes.

0
Handsome.P.Wonderful | 26 January 2011 - 12:55pm

I'm absolutely disgusted by that profile

How DARE you imply I'm 30...

0
Joe R | 26 January 2011 - 1:07pm

me too

my earnings simply aren't shaping up (Oh, that and the obvious)

0
katyg | 26 January 2011 - 1:35pm

At my next performance review

I'll be submitting that piece as evidence that 44% of people who do the same thing as me for most of the day earn more than I do.

1
Martin Simmonds | 26 January 2011 - 3:29pm

Dog eat Dog at Sky

I think it is highly likely that Mr Grey and Keyes had as many enemies inside as outside Sky. The lads were getting too big for their boots and it was only a matter of time. Their attitudes may play well in the Dog and Duck at shutting time but stone cold soaber? See Martin Samuel on The Mail website for a different slant on the issue. (I know its the Mail but he is a good writer, honest)

0
N2Peach | 26 January 2011 - 11:59am

Martin Samuel

Fabulous writer. Bloody hell, he churns out some copy. Mighty was my dischuffedness when he left The Thunderer to take the coin of that nice Mr Dacre.

2
Lenny Law | 26 January 2011 - 2:05pm

Thirded

on Samuel. Excellent.

0
DougieJ | 28 January 2011 - 10:15pm

I've said it before on here

The Mail is a newspaper made to be read from back to front, except there's no need to bother with the front bit.

2
Dave Amitri | 28 January 2011 - 10:24pm

Good point.

I've made a related point on here before that people may not buy the Mail so much for its editorial stance as is imagined. It may just as likely be the gardening tips, the TV guide, Garfield, the crossword, or, indeed, the sports section. The same applies to most papers in my opinion - a large percentage of the Guardian's sales could well be due to its job pages, for example.

0
DougieJ | 28 January 2011 - 10:48pm

Well

Now can you imagine a quality newspaper printing a complaint from an anonymous male worker at, say, Marie Claire that "There's this girly vibe and it's like a women's club"?

I freelanced on a few women's magazines and – although the editorial staff were overwhelmingly female – I found everyone perfectly pleasant and not-at-all annoying. Sexist it was not.

0
Brookster | 26 January 2011 - 1:14pm

Still...

There'd be few water-cooler conversations about whether Millwall should tighten up their lines with a single holding midfielder in a deeper role, I imagine.

I was just commenting on how much this is getting blown up about all proportion, to the extent that the original issue, and the only one that really matters - women are still being discriminated against in an area (officiating at top-level football matches) where equal opportunities should apply - is being forgotten.

In today's papers and online I don't see empowerment being fostered so much as a rather weird prudishness being brought into play.

0
Archie Valparaiso | 26 January 2011 - 1:32pm

As usual

I find myself in broad agreement with the gentleman from Cadiz. Any serious point about sexism has been totally lost amongst a shitstorm of dubble stannards and po-faced hippocrassy innit? To be accused of sexist attitudes by Her Majesty's Tabloid Press takes the irony biscuit to a cosmic level.

I have absolutely no doubt that the hapless duo have been made to walk the plank because a) there time was up and this is a perfect excuse to bin them; b) that they had upset some king suits at Sky; c) Murdoch's emissaries would have encouraged Sky to get rid of these troublesome twits so as to not further sully their bid for majority share in Sky.

Anyway, as I've always said, there's two fings I can't stand. Sexism - and ugly birds

"Cor, look at the..."

"Yes, thank you Sheev"

8
Sheev | 30 January 2011 - 12:12am

I haven't read all the posts

But got the inside story from a pal who works at Sky as a reporter.
Gray and Keys (and Burton) thought of as odious wankers most were unable to work with and a cabale who saw themselves above the rest. Contracts of more than £1.5m (in the case of Gray) made that even more difficult to take and their deep unpopularity was becoming block in proposed plans to remodel coverage.
The whole thing has been a set-up to get rid of them.
As for Karen Brady, another journalism pal worked at Brum recently, and says she is as mad as a bag of badgers, a dictator with a very slim grasp of the football industry.

2
PaddyH | 30 January 2011 - 12:30am

Set up

Definitely a set up, which is not to say that they didn't deserve it and that they clearly had it coming to them.

The insistence that they left their microphones open doesn't hold water - quality isn't good enough for starters. What's been recorded is talkback between presenters - ie material they know is not going on air, nor has any chance of going on air. Essentially they're intercom messages.

The fact that further incriminating clips were on hand to be disseminated online within hours also suggests this was pre-planned, just a question of when they were going to catch them at it.

Possibly, knowing they were doing a game featuring a female assistant referee, those that orchestrated the set-up knew that this was a great opportunity to nail them. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in Key's ear, a voice from the production team was saying, "Look Richard, a female linesman. Let Andy know, he'll have some fun with this". And away they go. (I do totally agree with the point below - it wasn't "banter", it was two blokes expressing their outdated opinions in classic "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" mode. With that mindset, all the easier to wind them up and let them self-destruct).

Why were they set up? I've heard plenty of similar stories about the way they lord it over the production teams at Sky. Maybe they've pissed off one too many cameramen, producers, directors, engineers, co-presenters over the years. Maybe Sky were looking for a way of getting them off screen in order to revamp their coverage. Or maybe the NotW conspiracy theory holds good. Gray had the temerity to sue over phone hacking. Here's a message to him. And to the rest of you suing us - we're happy to come after you and fuck up your lives as well. Think on.

Whatever the thinking, in my opinion this was definitely a case of conspiracy, not cock-up.

0
Molesworth | 30 January 2011 - 3:40pm

This did cross my mind

News corp outlets and BSkyB were very swift in going to town covering this story - which usually doesn't happen when knocking copy on Murdoch owned enterprises hits the newsstands.

0
BigJimBob | 30 January 2011 - 3:46pm

The NoTW thing

Was also simmering in the background - Andy being a champion shagger and arch sectarian drew attention to himself - although it had been buried for a few years.
Now with all this coming out, an opportunity had been grasped to get rid once and for all.

0
PaddyH | 30 January 2011 - 10:43pm

'arch sectarian'

I hadn't heard that, Paddy. Can you enlighten me at all? I hope you mean more than simply that he was/is a Rangers fan?!

0
DougieJ | 31 January 2011 - 8:58pm

Wikipedia has him down as quite the ladies' man but...

... nothing as heinous as singing the Sash in a pub in front of a microphone, or running behind the goal after scoring and playing the air flute ... born Glasgow, mum from Lewis (an island not known for its priests), supported the Dark Side when he was a kid ... but nothing that jumps out at you as "sectarian" ...

0
Glenbervie | 8 February 2011 - 12:48am

Sorry, missed the last two posts

According to my snout (a left footer, albeit), he is known for a robust use of the sectarian vernacular in the workplace, and inappropriately so. Enough to have attracted attention in a time when workplace 'antics' were being monitored and enough to make him even more unpopular.
I wasn't suggesting that simply support for the Gers was the story.
Just noticed this, so sorry for the lateness of responding.

0
PaddyH | 8 February 2011 - 1:43am

A New Direction

That Sky are going with Ben Shephard and Jamie Redknapp, at least in the short term, makes much of the theory that their coverage is going to become much more female friendly.
This link to the Telegraph http://bit.ly/hNGGn0 isn't a boot in the ass off what I've heard from Sky's West London HQ.
Certainly Gray and Keys would not have been keen to pursue the new direction, et voila, they are offski.
Surely, Gray has a case for unfair dismissal - acting retrospectively tends not to go down in employment law.
However, will he have the appetite to take action with what the NoTW may have on him? (If they have anything.)

0
PaddyH | 30 January 2011 - 11:43pm

The original leaked recording

Listened to it for the first time on the David Mitchell blog earlier today.

I couldnt detect any humour or irony in the way it was said, it sounded like opinionated, bigoted men thinking that what they thought was all that counted, if you didnt agree with them, you were wrong.

I never watched the game in question, (just got rid of Sky, moved on to Freesat), but by all accounts, she made a really big, potentially very contentious call absolutely correctly.

with all of the technology available to them, did AG & RK mention this offside decision? &, if they did, did they credit her with making the correct call?

I would be really interested to know how that decision panned out.

1
jackthebiscuit | 30 January 2011 - 3:18pm
fortuneight | 8 February 2011 - 3:36pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd