- Print Topic - Archive

Quoted from Alan Buckley

Can you imagine if it was Pratt Dannatt 😂 that guy is absolutely clueless about football but feels the need to comment on everything despite having very limited knowledge on the game.

I went to college with Matt, lovely lad who loves Town, not sure why he’s getting slagged off.

Personally I hope it’s Matt Dean, always rated him when commenting.

Isn’t Matt Dean sports editor for RH? Wouldn’t that make it difficult for him to be our regular commentator? Bit of part time work for Burnsy woukd be iideal but probably burnt his boats there.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Isn’t Matt Dean sports editor for RH? Wouldn’t that make it difficult for him to be our regular commentator? Bit of part time work for Burnsy woukd be iideal but probably burnt his boats there.

I'm pretty sure Burnsy managed to juggle being Sports Editor and lead commentator for Hull just fine. Dean would be my pick but Scott Woodthorpe might be an option too.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Isn’t Matt Dean sports editor for RH? Wouldn’t that make it difficult for him to be our regular commentator? Bit of part time work for Burnsy woukd be iideal but probably burnt his boats there.

My understanding from a very good source was that DB would have been happy to go back to RH and commentate on the Hull games after he was made redundant but they said no.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Isn’t Matt Dean sports editor for RH? Wouldn’t that make it difficult for him to be our regular commentator? Bit of part time work for Burnsy woukd be iideal but probably burnt his boats there.

I saw burnsy at the FGR game. In fact, I heard his voice before I saw him!

Still has a soft spot for us. Great broadcaster.

Quoted from Alan Buckley

Can you imagine if it was Pratt Dannatt 😂 that guy is absolutely clueless about football but feels the need to comment on everything despite having very limited knowledge on the game.

Feels a bit harsh on Matt this!

Quoted from Alan Buckley

Can you imagine if it was Pratt Dannatt 😂 that guy is absolutely clueless about football but feels the need to comment on everything despite having very limited knowledge on the game.

Bit out of order this mate, you might not agree with his opinions but that’s what they are.. an opinion. Matts a good bloke and is passionate about the club. He did very good work whilst at the GT, a lot better than what is posted now.

Quoted from LocalLadGTFC

Bit out of order this mate, you might not agree with his opinions but that’s what they are.. an opinion. Matts a good bloke and is passionate about the club. He did very good work whilst at the GT, a lot better than what is posted now.

As per your point, that’s my opinion you don’t have to agree.

Only one man for the job. Arise Sir John of Mooreshire.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Isn’t Matt Dean sports editor for RH? Wouldn’t that make it difficult for him to be our regular commentator? Bit of part time work for Burnsy woukd be iideal but probably burnt his boats there.

No, it's Mike White.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Isn’t Matt Dean sports editor for RH? Wouldn’t that make it difficult for him to be our regular commentator? Bit of part time work for Burnsy woukd be iideal but probably burnt his boats there.

Burned with who..?

Quoted from arryarryarry

My understanding from a very good source was that DB would have been happy to go back to RH and commentate on the Hull games after he was made redundant but they said no.

I would like to clarify that DB has no connection with Radio Humberside, but Burnsy has.

Quoted from DB

I would like to clarify that DB has no connection with Radio Humberside, but Burnsy has.

That’s class!

I had a beer with Burnsy before the first night of “All Town aren’t we”.

An absolute gentleman, who is a fountain of knowledge of all things local.

Also, worth noting. He was initially from Glasgow and went to school in Cleethorpes. Certainly not an ‘Ull fan.

Burnsie sits in the Upper Smiths, must be a seaon ticket holder, BBC got rid due to financial cutbacks, so JT replacement will have to be cheap...just hope not its Matt Dean who only wants to shiit stirr and try to get the the fans against the manager to try and generate a"Story"

Quoted from pontoon442

Burnsie sits in the Upper Smiths, must be a seaon ticket holder, BBC got rid due to financial cutbacks, so JT replacement will have to be cheap...just hope not its Matt Dean who only wants to shiit stirr and try to get the the fans against the manager to try and generate a"Story"

I believe his son is a GTFC season ticket holder

Quoted from pontoon442

Burnsie sits in the Upper Smiths, must be a seaon ticket holder, BBC got rid due to financial cutbacks, so JT replacement will have to be cheap...just hope not its Matt Dean who only wants to shiit stirr and try to get the the fans against the manager to try and generate a"Story"

Matt describes the game excellently as a commentator. He's a journalist, JT isn't, and that's why he has to "generate" stories.

Matt Dean is an excellent journalist and would do a great job, although Burnsy would be even better!

Quoted from MuddyWaters

Matt Dean is an excellent journalist and would do a great job, although Burnsy would be even better!

I've known Matt for quite a few years. Nice chap, extremely professional and a fine commentator. If it is to be him the microphone is in good hands.

Burnsy is a top bloke.
Anyone know what he is doing since his disgraceful treatment by the BBC?

Quoted from DB

I would like to clarify that DB has no connection with Radio Humberside, but Burnsy has.

Hmmm... the old "denial of any interest strategy" eh DB? ;)

Quoted from Azimuth

Burnsy is a top bloke.
Anyone know what he is doing since his disgraceful treatment by the BBC?

What was ‘disgraceful’ about it? It might have been unpopular, unfortunate, unfair even, but disgraceful?
Your confirmation bias just drives you to twist anything remotely related to the BBC as being improper or left wing, or some other nonsense.

I would love for it to be David Burns, maybe as a free lance but would he want to do any work for BBC again? Would they even approach him again! More likely it be Matt Dean or Scott Woodthorpe

Can the club and vans not have any input? I personally would love to see David Burns doing the town commentary.
I recall him saying he was an arsenal fan, certainly not hull city.

Burnsy would be great.

Can the club and fans not have any input? I personally would love to see David Burns doing the town commentary.
I recall him saying he was an arsenal fan, certainly not hull city.

Burnsy asks difficult questions, he'd be the best at the job but not necessarily the club's first choice I'd imagine!

Commentators don’t need to be asking any questions, they just need to describe what’s happening on the pitch.

Burnsy would be perfect

Quoted from chaos33

What was ‘disgraceful’ about it? It might have been unpopular, unfortunate, unfair even, but disgraceful?
Your confirmation bias just drives you to twist anything remotely related to the BBC as being improper or left wing, or some other nonsense.

Who on earth would try to deny that the BBC was anything other than improper and left wing?! If Jimmy savile was still alive, he’d still have people at the top trying to give him a job!

Quoted from ska face

Commentators don’t need to be asking any questions, they just need to describe what’s happening on the pitch.

They have to ask questions in the after match interview. You obviously don't listen to Radio Humberside.

I listen to pretty much every word that comes out of the club and 99% of it is the usual bøllocks from managers, board & players no matter whatever they get asked. We don’t need Jeremy Paxman, let’s start with a low bar of knowing the players’ names & some basic tactical awareness and we’ll go from there perhaps.

Quoted from ska face

I listen to pretty much every word that comes out of the club and 99% of it is the usual bøllocks from managers, board & players no matter whatever they get asked. We don’t need Jeremy Paxman, let’s start with a low bar of knowing the players’ names & some basic tactical awareness and we’ll go from there perhaps.

Bang on. The science of commentary is a little more sophisticated with the benefit of real time match data and rewinds to check key moments, but the essence for radio especially is keen observation and good powers of description.

Sometimes a co commentator can add extra depth of analysis but yesterday was a tedious round of matey repetition and 'That's right JT' .

Burns is able to convey a timely and accurate picture of a game in motion and see it as fans do. Having said that, it's perhaps time to try a younger talent out.

Burnsy would be prob the best

Quoted from Heisenberg

Who on earth would try to deny that the BBC was anything other than improper and left wing?! If Jimmy savile was still alive, he’d still have people at the top trying to give him a job!

Absolute cobblers.
The Head of the BBC is a Tory appointee.
Doubtless this comes from some simplistic notion that the BBC is a ‘state broadcaster’ with a more or less compulsory purchase licence fee. When the usual dimwits squawk about the BBC having a left wing bias, what they mean is - they have a few journalists who challenge the government and try to hold them to account. Of course, those people in power don’t like or want that, so now, there’s the narrative peddled that if you can understand data and form cogent opinions based on research and reflection, then you’re a ‘lefty’. Coincidentally, the last 14 years have seen that reality take firm hold. The British public gaslit day after day, and political discussion programmes forced to endure the views of non experts, grifters, incompetents, and proven liars in the interests of ‘balance’ - see Nigel Farage the most common participant on Question Time and Kwasi Kwarteng on Lura Kunesburg last week for example. Without the BBC this country’s media would be in a terrible state and you’d have no local radio and tv at all, to say nothing of all of the other content they produce.

I think Matt would be fine, the quality of the commentary is defined by the co-commentator for me and to that end I hope we hear more from Crofty & Gritton. Oh, and Alex Rodman was very good a few weeks back, but unlikely to feature regularly.

Quoted from SpiritOf98

I think Matt would be fine, the quality of the commentary is defined by the co-commentator for me and to that end I hope we hear more from Crofty & Gritton. Oh, and Alex Rodman was very good a few weeks back, but unlikely to feature regularly.

Totally agree, MD is decent, and the three mentioned above bring good knowledge and a nice degree of reminiscence and humour

Quoted from HerveJosse

Any suggestions on JTs successor . Probably someone with a journalistic background rather than ex player. Please not Nigel Lowther (int it !)

How many ex player commentators has there been?

Quoted from Heisenberg

Who on earth would try to deny that the BBC was anything other than improper and left wing?! If Jimmy savile was still alive, he’d still have people at the top trying to give him a job!

How does Jimmy Savile have anything to do with the BBC being left wing? Given his wealth, I'd expect he was more right wng.

The BBC are often accused by the right of being too left wing, and accused by the left of being too right wing. That suggests to me they're getting it about right.

Quoted from SpiritOf98

I think Matt would be fine, the quality of the commentary is defined by the co-commentator for me and to that end I hope we hear more from Crofty & Gritton. Oh, and Alex Rodman was very good a few weeks back, but unlikely to feature regularly.

Actually Rodman had done his homework on town so "knew his stuff" but I'm bit disappointed with Croft.

I enjoyed the time they had Anthony Limbrick on co-comms, when we lost at Wrexham a few years back. He was very knowledgeable tactically and gave a very different perspective.

Not that he's interested in being a commentator, but worth mentioning since we're talking about the importance of co-commentators in helping to describe the action.

In terms of the commentator, I think there is more than enough quality from Matt Dean, Mike White and Ollie Turner. I wouldn't be surprised to see it rotated, and that isn't a bad thing as everyone sees things differently. The co-commentator role is an important one though, I really like hearing what Gary Cohen has to say.

Imagine it'll be shared between Matt Dean and Scott Woodthorpe. Both big town fans.

Quoted from wigworld

How does Jimmy Savile have anything to do with the BBC being left wing? Given his wealth, I'd expect he was more right wng.

The BBC are often accused by the right of being too left wing, and accused by the left of being too right wing. That suggests to me they're getting it about right.

The problem is, is if the right-wing are trying to defend racism, and the left are trying to say it's wrong. The middle ground BBC, would be all up in the "some would say this is racism, but is it really racism, and is racism always really a bad thing?".

You just cannot take the middle ground on some issues and have to call it out, despite accusations of bias. If the right and left both think the BBC is excrement, maybe it's not unbiased (which is impossible), but maybe it is a bit excrement. Ultimately, it's mostly posh liberal journalists who cannot comprehend anything other than the status quo being good, because it's been really good for them.

And to truly understand bias, you'd have to understand the Overton window, and how it has shifted rightwards over the decades. Left-wing means common ownership of the means of production (nationalisation in a nutshell), which the BBC would frame as fringe and radical. What people often perceive as left and right is right wing (free-market capitalism, or even neoliberalism), versus centre politics (private ownership still, but with some accepted redistribution of wealth within the confines of a free market system, which is liberalism). If people were to think BBC was left-wing, they would be demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of what it means.

Of course, this conversation is all a distraction, because the only bias we care about is if it all focuses on 'ull, or whether we get a good hearing.

The fact is that this Hester guy has said something which is clearly racist and sexist yet apologised for being 'rude'. The Tory line is that he said something racist, sexist and aggressive ('she should be shot', let's not forget), but has apologised and yet not one of the BBC interviewers have pulled up the various Tory interviewees to point out that he apologised for something which he hasn't been accused of or been criticised for. People are rude about politicians all the time, we don't mind that much. Making racist and sexist comments is a bit different. Why hasn't a single one of these BBC journalists pushed in interviews to get the Tories to respond to Hester's non-apology? They surely can't all be incompetent?

As for a replacement for Tondeur, I suppose the biggest point is that there has to be a willingness to give up your weekends for a substantial chunk of the year, plus lots of travel for midweek games as well. Easier for a fan to do, but could put a lot of strain on family relationships. Would Burns even be interested in the job, given these demands and the fact that he's not exactly a spring chicken any longer?

Will miss Tondeur's dulcet tones as the voice of the Mariners and his commentary accompanying iFollow is great. But I stopped listening to his radio commentary years ago because you'd have no idea where the ball was on the pitch until "and there's the goal". I know others love his commentary though. Wish him all the best in his radio retirement

Quoted from wigworld

How does Jimmy Savile have anything to do with the BBC being left wing? Given his wealth, I'd expect he was more right wng.

The BBC are often accused by the right of being too left wing, and accused by the left of being too right wing. That suggests to me they're getting it about right.

Not sure what political leanings twit Saville had but the BBC should have been shut down once it became clear that some senior staff were aware of some of his antics and did nothing but let him carry on assaulting young girls, having sex with vulnerable old women, some mentally vulnerable women and even deceased women.

The bloke was a girl private of the highest order and it's a flipping disgrace that the BBC let him get away with it.

We're lucky to have the BBC in this country. It's good value with excellent content, and streaming platforms can't get close to it for viewing while the radio stands head and shoulders above commercial.

The sad demise of local papers holding people to account also means the BBC is now more important than ever. From a Town perspective I'd hope Burnsy gets the gig as he is a top operator (so is JT). No complaints if it is Matt Dean either.

Imagine a world full of PR bull from owners or sanitised opinion through lackey media. It would be a complete waste of time. If we're not careful that's what we'll end up with and be much worse off as a result.

Completely agree Yarborough Vaults. The BBC might have its faults (everyone/ everything does), but it’s far better than anything else out there. Be careful what you wish for.

Quoted from chaos33

What was ‘disgraceful’ about it? It might have been unpopular, unfortunate, unfair even, but disgraceful?
Your confirmation bias just drives you to twist anything remotely related to the BBC as being improper or left wing, or some other nonsense.

What utter drivel, you have attempted to twist what I said.
I didnt mention left wing or anything remotely political.
I stated that David Burns was treated disgracefully by the BBC, which is my opinion and the last time I looked we were all entitled to one of those.
My opinion is based on his excellent presenting of Local content, support for local bands and artists and last but not least his sports commentry.
The fact he won Radio Presenter of the Year three times and was then told he was no longer needed was in my opinion a disgrace and shameful of the BBC.

Quoted from wigworld

How does Jimmy Savile have anything to do with the BBC being left wing? Given his wealth, I'd expect he was more right wng.

The BBC are often accused by the right of being too left wing, and accused by the left of being too right wing. That suggests to me they're getting it about right.

Jimmy Saville was a known Conservative supporter and public admirer of Margaret Thatcher. He was knighted under the Thatcher administration.
He was also a de facto advisor to her and she appointed him to lead a task force to review Broadmoor Hospital. A decision that led to him gaining power in the hospital and increased access to patients.

Cannot stand BBC, way too left leaning. If you think they’re impartial why did they refuse to call hamas terrorists when they executed thousands of innocent Israelis last year? I bet if it had been the other way around they’d have called the IDF terrorists. Gary Linekar sums the beeb up for me. No thanks.

Quoted from Grimsby Is Not In Yorkshire

Cannot stand BBC, way too left leaning. If you think they’re impartial why did they refuse to call hamas terrorists when they executed thousands of innocent Israelis last year? I bet if it had been the other way around they’d have called the IDF terrorists. Gary Linekar sums the beeb up for me. No thanks.

Spectacularly missing the reality of who runs the country. Still, crack on with that and your GB News….

Abu Obaida as Tondeur’s replacement?

Quoted from Grimsby Is Not In Yorkshire

Cannot stand BBC, way too left leaning. If you think they’re impartial why did they refuse to call hamas terrorists when they executed thousands of innocent Israelis last year? I bet if it had been the other way around they’d have called the IDF terrorists. Gary Linekar sums the beeb up for me. No thanks.

Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they're all asking why the BBC doesn't say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.
The answer goes right back to the BBC's founding principles.
Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that's their business. We also run interviews with guests and quote contributors who describe Hamas as terrorists.
The key point is that we don't say it in our voice. Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds.
As it happens, of course, many of the people who've attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it's not as though we're hiding the truth in any way - far from it.
Any reasonable person would be appalled by the kind of thing we've seen. It's perfectly reasonable to call the incidents that have occurred "atrocities", because that's exactly what they are.
No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.

Note, they aren't calling the IDF terrorists, either. Hamas kicked it all off with their terrorist attacks (well, the latest round of this never-ending conflict), but the IDF is killing innocent civilians in the tens of thousands and deliberately starving millions. That's a bit terroristy if you ask me.

The Israeli settlers currently stealing Palestinian land whilst backed by the IDF are certainly terrorists by any definition of the term, but the Beeb isn't calling them that, either.

Can all just agree that Netanyahu is the biggest villain of the piece? One of the very worst people on the planet who has been stoking conflict in the region to stay in power for years.

Quoted from Roast Em Bobby

Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they're all asking why the BBC doesn't say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.
The answer goes right back to the BBC's founding principles.
Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that's their business. We also run interviews with guests and quote contributors who describe Hamas as terrorists.
The key point is that we don't say it in our voice. Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds.
As it happens, of course, many of the people who've attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it's not as though we're hiding the truth in any way - far from it.
Any reasonable person would be appalled by the kind of thing we've seen. It's perfectly reasonable to call the incidents that have occurred "atrocities", because that's exactly what they are.
No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.

Spot on.

Any chance we can start a thread under “politics and the BBC”, put it in non football and then the rights and wrongs can be put in there, while this thread talks about JTs successor

Quoted from Maringer

Note, they aren't calling the IDF terrorists, either. Hamas kicked it all off with their terrorist attacks (well, the latest round of this never-ending conflict), but the IDF is killing innocent civilians in the tens of thousands and deliberately starving millions. That's a bit terroristy if you ask me.
.

The definition of terrorism is acts of violence (or threats or perceived threats) carried out by non governmental organisations. Hamas are technically not a terrorist organisation because they have a role in the government of Gaza/Palestine but several countries have defined them as a terrorist organisation as this fits their commentary. The IDF cannot be a terrorist organisation because they are the official Israeli army and are acting on orders from the Israeli government.

It is possible to see the Hamas attacks on Israel as terrorism (they were not the acts of and ordered by a Gaza/Palestinian government) while the Israeli response could be characterised as invasion, regime change or attempted genocide but not terrorism. Israel's own characterisation of it as self defence is designed to appease public opinion across the world while justifying huge casualties and attacks on schools and hospitals among other targets.

Oxford dictionary definition:

noun
noun: terrorism

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

No mentions of governments in there, that I can see.

The question is, when will JT or Matt Dean interject and tell us what they think about the whole Palestine question?

how has a discussion on who might/should replace JT turned into "who is a terrorist? Hamas or the IDF?"

P.S. The answer is both.

Was talking to someone at work about this on Tuesday. They were wearing a Palestinian flag on their jumper. I couldn’t understand why, as he’s from dungannon. And he said due to the ongoing dispute. I asked how he picks a side and if he is on russias side too, because, like hamas did in Israel, Russia invaded and decided to have a bit of fisticuffs with Ukraine.

Now, I can’t claim to know anything about either of the ‘wars’, I leave that to all the experts on social media.