Sky presenter

Tailwind said:
McCoist doesn't really push the Rangers perspective, trying too hard to be neutral.

Boyd fighting a lone fight v about 5 of them.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure McCoist was the most vocal of anyone that it wasn’t a penalty.

Also I think Walker said it wasn’t so that was 3-1 against it. Then McCoist just laughed and said it was never a penalty in a million years.
 
Did O'Neill not say " it was absolutely a penalty ....I haven't seen it yet but it was definitely a penalty "
 
Peekaboo said:
Pretty sure McCoist was the most vocal of anyone that it wasn’t a penalty.
Click to expand...
Boyd was the most vocal.

McCoist lauded Rodgers Celtic.
Was gobsmacked that Turnbull wasn’t picked for Scotland.
Was happy to play the role of the butt of Walker and Barbour’s jokes

Amongst others.

I know some people want McCoist to be 100% neutral, but I don’t agree with this. It’s like the token bears on Clyde etc, who are there just to give broadcasts a suggestion of objectivity. The mentally challengeds are biased as %^*&. The bears are neutral. So the overall impression given by these shows is a massively pro mentally challenged look, dressed up as “neutral” as there is a bear in the team. But he’s not allowed to actually give pro bear views.

So you have 5 mentally challenged views.
1 neutral view
1 Rangers view

The slant of the programme is massively the mentally challenged view. But they pretend it’s even because there is a token bear or two for show.

In these scenarios, the way you get an overall ”neutral” or objective programme is for the bears to be every bit as biased in our favour as they are in theirs, so they sort of balance out.

So, I don’t want McCoist to be straight down the line. He doesn’t need to be ridiculous like the mentally challengeds either. But all the arse kissing of Rodgers, Turnbull, etc. Just leave it out. Don’t mention it at all.
 
In the review after the final whistle the presenter seemed to back track on what she had been suggesting at half time leaving wibble as the only one maintaining it was a penalty.

She suggested it was 2-1 in favour of it not being a penalty (Boyd & McFadden against O'Neil) before going over to McCoist and Walker - Walker said straight away make that 3-1 (not a penalty) and Ally said it was never a penalty.

So the only one in the studio maintaining that it was a penalty was Wibble.

Clyde was different both Wilson and Keevins demonstrated that they don't actually know the rules of the game by claiming that despite the fact there was no contact it was still a penalty :)) :)) :))
 
Tailwind said:
I don’t really care why she has no objectivity, no impartiality and honesty. All I care about is that she does not.

She was fcuking disgrace in leading the campaign to get Alfie cited, literally pleading for the CO to act several times at HT and FT

She is a terrible presenter. She is a biased cnut. And she can go and fcuk herself. She is every bit as bad as Crocker and Walker.

Emma Dodds puts her to shame
Click to expand...
Sound mate.

Didn't come on the thread.to argue, was just to make the point she's not a mentally challenged.

Away and look at the league table, open another can and calm down
 
Smkz23 said:
She actually does, some of the people from our Perth office at work grew up with her and are Saints fans have confirmed it.
Click to expand...
Aye Santa Claus exists as well. Two blokes in our Lapland office used to look after his reindeer when he went on holiday and they confirmed it.
 
Blueranger45 said:
but why would you be nervous round wibble if you are a St Johnstone fan? :D

if you are a Celtic fan, you might have idolised him for what he did, until McLeish pulled it all down. Plenty of journalists do the old "I'm a Partick/Airdrie etc fan", her face after so many games this season tells me she doesn't like us
Click to expand...
Honestly got no idea mate.i agree with what you're saying though. I've not listened to enough of the sky coverage to have an opinion on her. Only formed on knowing her and knowing she's not a bitter sort.

Whether that's being led by producers on sky or not, is probably a wider issue and a big part of why Tanner wanted out from sky as he felt their coverage of Celtic was becoming excessive.
 
Tailwind said:
Boyd was the most vocal.

McCoist lauded Rodgers Celtic.
Was gobsmacked that Turnbull wasn’t picked for Scotland.
Was happy to play the role of the butt of Walker and Barbour’s jokes

Amongst others.

I know some people want McCoist to be 100% neutral, but I don’t agree with this. It’s like the token bears on Clyde etc, who are there just to give broadcasts a suggestion of objectivity. The mentally challengeds are biased as %^*&. The bears are neutral. So the overall impression given by these shows is a massively pro mentally challenged look, dressed up as “neutral” as there is a bear in the team. But he’s not allowed to actually give pro bear views.

So you have 5 mentally challenged views.
1 neutral view
1 Rangers view

The slant of the programme is massively the mentally challenged view. But they pretend it’s even because there is a token bear or two for show.

In these scenarios, the way you get an overall ”neutral” or objective programme is for the bears to be every bit as biased in our favour as they are in theirs, so they sort of balance out.

So, I don’t want McCoist to be straight down the line. He doesn’t need to be ridiculous like the mentally challengeds either. But all the arse kissing of Rodgers, Turnbull, etc. Just leave it out. Don’t mention it at all.
Click to expand...

Why was Boyd any more vocal than McCoist about the penalty? The thread is pretty embarrassing as has been said it was 4-1 that it wasn’t a penalty.

Wibble was the only one saying it was and he was pretty incoherent and taking pish most of the program anyway.
 
Take no notice of that hawf wit. Just makes it a million times funnier knowing how raging her cocker and Walker are that Alfie scored.
 
Peekaboo said:
Why was Boyd any more vocal than McCoist about the penalty? The thread is pretty embarrassing as has been said it was 4-1 that it wasn’t a penalty.

Wibble was the only one saying it was and he was pretty incoherent and taking pish most of the program anyway.
Click to expand...
Not that any of it matters but Walker was saying it WAS a penalty. The wee lesbo phrased it that it was 2-1 but made it sound like 2-1 in favour of it being a penalty. Straight away Walker said that's 3-1 then.
 
Big Joke New said:
Not that any of it matters but Walker was saying it WAS a penalty. The wee lesbo phrased it that it was 2-1 but made it sound like 2-1 in favour of it being a penalty. Straight away Walker said that's 3-1 then.
Click to expand...

See post #106. Walker said during commentary it wasn’t Barbour said she was withdrawing her view so it was 2-1, Walker then said 3-1 and then they went to McCoist who laughed and said never a penalty in a million years.
 
Peekaboo said:
See post #106. Walker said during commentary it wasn’t Barbour said she was withdrawing her view so it was 2-1, Walker then said 3-1 and then they went to McCoist who laughed and said never a penalty in a million years.
Click to expand...
I read all that - it's not the way it looked to me.
 
Big Joke New said:
No Tailwind. Some would like to pump her - there's a big difference
Click to expand...
Aye, sad that a bitter, mentally challenged agenda promoting boot gets a free ride off so many in her because they think she is attractive. She’s barely even average at best. And that would be no defence anyway. A guy behaving as she does would get it both barrels. Coo
 
Peekaboo said:
Why was Boyd any more vocal than McCoist about the penalty? The thread is pretty embarrassing as has been said it was 4-1 that it wasn’t a penalty.

Wibble was the only one saying it was and he was pretty incoherent and taking pish most of the program anyway.
Click to expand...
This is not true.

In real time and the initial replays Walker was trying to invent contact.

Barbour was pushing for being a pen during half time.

I would say lying about what people said, that would have been clearly observed by thousands, is more embarrassing than someone starting a thread pointing out the ridiculous stance taken by these pundits. I turned over to a different source on full time. No way I was listening to Sky at full time given their bs up until then and throughout this season.

Barbour, Walker and O’Neill all argued for the pen at different points. I would say it is embarrassing for you attack other bears for pointing this out in your defence of mentally challenged minded scrotes.
 
petepoto said:
Gonna defend McCoist a wee bit here.

Don't think there is anything wrong with trying to call it down the middle. He should be as a pundit. I don't want cheerleaders like that lot have. Just want fair analysis.
Click to expand...
As a pundit, he’s there to give an analysis of the game and perhaps educate the layman on tactics and in play situations.
That said, I’m pretty sure he said it wasn’t a penalty.
 
Tailwind said:
Boyd was the most vocal.

McCoist lauded Rodgers Celtic.
Was gobsmacked that Turnbull wasn’t picked for Scotland.
Was happy to play the role of the butt of Walker and Barbour’s jokes

Amongst others.

I know some people want McCoist to be 100% neutral, but I don’t agree with this. It’s like the token bears on Clyde etc, who are there just to give broadcasts a suggestion of objectivity. The mentally challengeds are biased as %^*&. The bears are neutral. So the overall impression given by these shows is a massively pro mentally challenged look, dressed up as “neutral” as there is a bear in the team. But he’s not allowed to actually give pro bear views.

So you have 5 mentally challenged views.
1 neutral view
1 Rangers view

The slant of the programme is massively the mentally challenged view. But they pretend it’s even because there is a token bear or two for show.

In these scenarios, the way you get an overall ”neutral” or objective programme is for the bears to be every bit as biased in our favour as they are in theirs, so they sort of balance out.

So, I don’t want McCoist to be straight down the line. He doesn’t need to be ridiculous like the mentally challengeds either. But all the arse kissing of Rodgers, Turnbull, etc. Just leave it out. Don’t mention it at all.
Click to expand...
Sorry to say this but McCoist has really annoyed me this season and I know saying that won’t be popular with many. Over the season he’s been very critical of Morelos and has failed to defend him when Alfie has been criticised wrongly in many instances by people like Crocker and Walker.
Today the only thing he stood up for us was about the diving incident. Apart from that he was agreeing left right and centre with everything else that was said apart from the childish patter that they all indulged in with O’Neil at full time.The commentary during the game was like listening to what I imagine Celtic TV would have sounded like. Ally was part of that.
As a player I worshiped Ally, as a Manager I recognise the vital role he played in keeping our club alive when others were trying to kill us off. As a commentator I wish he stood up more for us. He didn’t today and on many other occasions this season.
 
Tailwind said:
This is not true.

In real time and the initial replays Walker was trying to invent contact.

Barbour was pushing for being a pen during half time.

I would say lying about what people said, that would have been clearly observed by thousands, is more embarrassing than someone starting a thread pointing out the ridiculous stance taken by these pundits. I turned over to a different source on full time. No way I was listening to Sky at full time given their bs up until then and throughout this season.

Barbour, Walker and O’Neill all argued for the pen at different points. I would say it is embarrassing for you attack other bears for pointing this out in your defence of mentally challenged minded scrotes.
Click to expand...

So you turned over and didn’t see it. Fair enough.
 
Peekaboo said:
So you turned over and didn’t see it. Fair enough.
Click to expand...
I saw and heard what she clearly did say at HT.

I saw what Walker clearly said at the time and in the subsequent.

I heard ONeills comments at half time.

I find your unwillingness to accept that what they said was clearly wrong is embarrassing (a term you used at fans on here and I throw back at you) as you then used it to attack fellow Rangers fans for starting a thread on a discussion board about their obvious and indefensible bias.

I am commenting directly on things I did see and hear. Why are you pretending these things were not said? It was actually broadcast live on tv and seen and heard by every fan on here who watched on Sky.

So nothing “fair enough” about your posts.

Can I ask, like the other guy, is she a friend/acquaintance of yours? Would explain your deliberate obfuscation of the situation.
 
Tailwind said:
I saw and heard what she clearly did say at HT.

I saw what Walker clearly said at the time and in the subsequent.

I heard ONeills comments at half time.

I find your unwillingness to accept that what they said was clearly wrong is embarrassing (a term you used at fans on here and I throw back at you) as you then used it to attack fellow Rangers fans for starting a thread on a discussion board about their obvious and indefensible bias.

I am commenting directly on things I did see and hear. Why are you pretending these things were not said? It was actually broadcast live on tv and seen and heard by every fan on here who watched on Sky.

So nothing “fair enough” about your posts.

Can I ask, like the other guy, is she a friend/acquaintance of yours? Would explain your deliberate obfuscation of the situation.
Click to expand...

It was clear as day after the match when they discussed the penalty that it was 4-1 in favour of it not being a penalty. It is embarrassing to say otherwise.

In terms of Barbour I thought she was poor and tried to make a debate out of something that Boyd and McFadden weren’t having. O’Neill wasn’t competent enough to put forward an argument and seemed to say it was because he wasn’t going to agree with Boyd.
 
Peekaboo said:
It was clear as day after the match when they discussed the penalty that it was 4-1 in favour of it not being a penalty. It is embarrassing to say otherwise.

In terms of Barbour I thought she was poor and tried to make a debate out of something that Boyd and McFadden weren’t having. O’Neill wasn’t competent enough to put forward an argument and seemed to say it was because he wasn’t going to agree with Boyd.
Click to expand...
I’ll make this easy for you as you are deliberately ignoring very clear points I have made through out.

1. At HT did Barbour try and indicate it was a penalty, despite the fact sky have broadcast video showing their was clearly no contact?
2. Did Walker at the time of the incident and in the immediate replays try and indicate it should be a penalty despite the video images clearly showing no contact?
3. Do you have a personal friendship, acquaintance or other reasons for refusing to admit what Barbour did at HT and pretending that at times during the broadcast Walker and Barbour in addition to O’Neill tried to cast doubt on the dive and the yellow card?
 
Last edited:
LiborSionko14 said:
She’s a cow.

also let’s not forget Chris McLaughlin turned her gay
Click to expand...
NNl6dHY.jpg
 
ALittleBitOfTheBubbly said:
Of course

I'l be putting my house on the market in the morning because an angry man on an Internet forum who's had far too many cans and lost all touch with reality told me.
Click to expand...
She's a coo with an agenda.

Whether you want to admit or not is up to you.

There is objective evidence broadcast across Sky Tv channels every weekend.

FYI, havent had a drink this weekend. Just dont like people with zero morals and integrity.
 
ALittleBitOfTheBubbly said:
Honestly got no idea mate.i agree with what you're saying though. I've not listened to enough of the sky coverage to have an opinion on her. Only formed on knowing her and knowing she's not a bitter sort.

Whether that's being led by producers on sky or not, is probably a wider issue and a big part of why Tanner wanted out from sky as he felt their coverage of Celtic was becoming excessive.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting comment about Tanner.
How do you know this?

Is Sky top-heavy with a pro-Celtc influence, is that what Tanner thought?
 
Tailwind said:
I’ll make this easy for you as you are deliberately ignoring very clear points I have made through out.

1. At HT did Barbour try and indicate it was a penalty, despite the fact sky have broadcast video showing their was clearly no contact?
2. Did Walker at the time of the incident and in the immediate replays try and indicate it should be a penalty despite the video images clearly showing no contact?
3. Do you have a personal friendship, acquaintance or other reasons for refusing to admit what Barbour dI’d at HT and pretending that at times during the broadcast Walker and Barbour in addition to O’Neill tried to cast doubt on the dive and the yellow card?
Click to expand...

Okay thanks for making it easy.

1) She does indeed say she is playing devils advocate and asks whether there is an argument that a player can go over when a challenge is made even if no contact. McFadden then says possibly but that’s not what happened in this situation.

2) Walker says there may be minimal contact and he’s gone over feeling that.

3) Never met her in my puff.

Now do me the courtesy and answer my question. Did Boyd, McFadden, Walker and then McCoist agree it wasn’t a penalty?
 
He was never getting a shot away after his first touch. Balls to far away. I don't think he realised that until it was to late for the contact to be made on him. If he hadn't lifted his leg he would have got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top