Why the BBC makes us Bitter Blues

Paul McParlan 20/03/2017  171 Comments  [Jump to last]

Everton fans like myself have always suspected that the media have always been stringently anti-Everton.

Most fans today don’t seem to realise that League football first started in 1888 and not in 1992, as Sky Sports would like us to believe. Since 1888, Everton have played more games and spent more seasons in the top flight than any other club. They have won the league title nine times, four more than Chelsea and five more than Manchester City. In other countries, clubs with such a rich footballing history and tradition are rightly revered and treated with deference by the media. In Italy, Juventus are known affectionately as the “Old Lady”. But tradition counts for nothing in modern English football.

Everton do not reflect the image of a modern club that is so beloved of the media. Howard Webb, last season, referred to Goodison Park as the most intimidating ground to be a referee. It was so heartening to hear a top class referee acknowledge that the passionate Everton fanbase can exert such pressure on a match official. What I love about visiting Everton is that I am not going to be surrounded by football tourists wielding their selfie sticks and sporting their fifty-fifty scarves. I am in the company of real fans, most from the local area. We know our History and we are proud of it. It is a pity the coverage the BBC provides about Everton never seems to convey this.

Advertisement

The running order of Match of the Day has always been a mystery to most Evertonians. We have reluctantly come to the conclusion that even if Everton were to win 13-0 away at Chelsea, we still would not be the first match shown. Saturday night was no exception. Every week, without fail, we are the last or second-last game to be shown, regardless of our performance. When in February, we beat Bournemouth 6–3 in a thriller at Goodison, we were still not the main game! Last Saturday, when only three games were played in the Premier League, we were still the last game shown, despite winning 3-0!

Yet again, despite a 4-0 win, Everton slipped down to fourth spot in the running order. But Saturday’s Match of the Day was a landmark as punters and commentators alike plunged new depths in their lack of knowledge of all things Everton. The script had obviously been pre–written before a ball was kicked to reflect the focus of the commentary. Within a few minutes, we were hit with the strapline. “No crowd reaction as yet to Lukaku’s failure to sign a new contract?” Except, there was a reaction from the crowd. A very positive one.

But you would never have gleaned that from the commentator Steve Wilson as he chose to toe the party line and ignore it! In fact, from the minute Lukaku entered the pitch, he was cheered by all four sides of the stadium. He had his name chanted throughout the game and every supporter in blue got behind him. Why? Because, we actually agreed with what he said about the club. I know the BBC has gained a reputation in recent years for ignoring poor behaviour from fans, I didn’t realise that positive behaviour was now also not worthy of mention.

However, more was yet to come from Steve Wilson. Everton scored a well worked opening goal. But Steve had spotted something. Apparently Schneiderlin had pulled the shirt of Hull’s Hernandez at the start of the move and “seconds later” Everton had scored. I timed it. A total of 31 seconds elapsed from the alleged foul to the ball being in the back of the net. I know from checking my son’s Maths homework that I will never understand this new-fangled Maths but I am still sure that 31 seconds is more than a few seconds. Seems more like half-a-minute to me?

During my years spent in Education, the importance of undertaking thorough research and checking your facts was hammered home to me. Apparently, in the era of fake news, such old-fashioned qualities are now deemed to be expendable. To be a footballing researcher for Match of the Day nowadays, you only have to show a selfie of yourself wearing a 50-50 scarf to get the gig.

So I sat stunned as Steve Wilson revealed his deep lack of football knowledge by stating that Enner Valencia scored his first goal for Everton against Tottenham last month. Probably got this drivel from Twitter. Enner scored his first Everton goal against Southampton on 2nd January. He had actually scored his first goal, a whole two months before Steve Wilson claimed. I know. I was there. I guess the BBC has never heard of performance management reviews? Just not good enough. Channel Five football commentators are better informed.

The post-match summary was a masterclass of misinformation and omission. Everton’s first goal had been scored by Dominic Calvert-Lewin, 20, scoring his first ever Everton goal in only his second appearance. Young Dominic had probably asked his family to record this momentous occasion for him as a permanent reminder of his first Premier League goal. I wouldn’t have bothered, Dominic. The pundits didn’t even discuss it. Two seasons ago, young Dominic was plying his trade for Stalybridge Celtic in the National League North; now, here he is scoring on only his second full appearance in the Premier League. Last season, we had wall-to-wall coverage of Marcus Rashford suddenly bursting onto the Premier League scene. If Rashford had played for Everton, you would still not have heard of him.

Everton’s first goal was worthy of discussion for other reasons. Ross Barkley, 23, played a defence splitting pass to Tom Davies, 18, who played a perfect ball across the area for Dominic Calvert-Lewin, 20, to score. Three young English players proving themselves at the top level. At a time when the cocaine-snorting, 27-year-old Jake Livermore was called up for the England squad, surely the emergence of particularly Davies and Calvert-Lewin was worthy of some discussion? Ross Barkley’s performances have been drawing rave reviews recently. His consistent displays since the start of the year have earned him a recall to the England squad. If you had watched Match of the Day, you would never know. Even stranger when you consider England are playing next weekend.

In December, I remember having to sit through hours of analysis on Match of the Day praising the free-flowing scoring of Liverpool and the tactical genius of their manager Jurgen Klopp. Liverpool were a joy to watch, their football was mesmerising defences across the land, and Liverpool were about to become the first ever team to win the Premier League in December. Plus, they were always the first or second game on Match of the Day. But when it comes to Everton? The average viewer might be unaware that since the start of 2017, Everton have played six home league games, scoring 3, 4, 6, 2, 3, 4 goals respectively and conceding 3. That is 22 goals in our last six home games. Worthy of some comment? Worthy of some discussion? Apparently not – because it is only “plucky little” Everton after all?

Match of the Day devoted a whole seven minutes of highlights to the Everton game. The same amount of time that was dedicated to that nail biting thriller of a match between Sunderland and Burnley. The Everton game had five minutes of post-match discussion, of which half was devoted to Lukaku’s failure to sign a new contract, rather than the game itself. No detailed discussion of Everton’s tactics or the impact the young players have made.

But then the coup de grace. The pundits agreed: Lukaku needs to move to a bigger club. Chelsea were mentioned, fair enough, but then Manchester United! A team, who at the time of broadcast, were below Everton in the league. Or maybe I am missing something here. Do “star” players now look at the clubs below them in the league before they consider their next move? Finally, and I had to check my calendar to make sure it was not the 1st April, someone suggested Liverpool! There is more chance of Theresa May inviting Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond around to Number Ten for a ménage à trois. So, let me get this right, there are no big clubs in Europe? Barcelona and Real Madrid rank below Man Utd and Liverpool in Shearer’s and Le Saux’s eyes?

Like most people, I pay my licence fee and in return I expect a quality provision from the BBC. I demand expert insight into football, I expect unbiased analysis of a club’s performance, I expect my team Everton to be treated fairly.

I noticed at the weekend that Spartak Moscow fans unveiled a huge banner mocking the BBC for their documentary on Russian Hooligans. Perhaps the next time the BBC cameras are at Goodison we need to do something to let the BBC know that we are Everton and we demand to be treated with respect by our national broadcaster.

Rumours are rife in the city that Everton will announce on Thursday that their new stadium will be constructed at the site of the former Bramley-Moore Dock, on the banks of the Royal Blue Mersey. If the BBC wants continued access to Everton games, they need to get their act together.

This article was originally published on Tales From The Top Flight and is reproduced here with Paul's permission. You can read more of his thoughts here.

Share this article

Reader Comments (171)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Stephen Brown
1 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:21:39
Fantastic, accurate read Paul!

It beggers belief! I too picked up a lot of the points you made!

Russ Quinlan
2 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:21:53
Just as I said on another thread, albeit not so eloquently! I don't bother with MotD any more, Sky do 30 minutes of every game on Match Choice at the same time as MotD so no contest.
Chris Kelly
3 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:25:39
Paul, I noticed some of the same points you raised too. The BBC crack me up as much as Sky for their favouritism. You can add Garth Crooks suggesting Lukaku would be fantastic at Liverpool to the list of things to wind us up.

They suggest that players should move to a club for Champions League even when they may not play in it. Their views on what defines a big club vary as required to include Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City, without ever qualifying why. Is this based on history, fan base, silverware, spend or global popularity? You would never know.

They never equate what has been achieved with what has been spent. Look at West Brom and Stoke, the media side with Wenger every time they turn Arsenal over. It's always they played direct or were aggressive as if these were negative qualities. If Man City or the Reds win, it's like watching Brazil 1970!

We have to let it slide until this generation of sycophants move on. We love our club, we know what it is to be an Evertonian so bollocks to them. Our time will come.

Dermot Byrne
5 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:30:58
Just big big banners at home.
Terry Farrell
6 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:39:59
Paul,

I totally agree, haven't they and Sky heard of diversity? Nothing makes my blood boil more than two ex-RS pundits running the rule over an Everton live match. Jim White was great the other day when they were discussing Rom wanting to move to win trophies and play Champions League and he said it was like when Suarez left LFC. Love it.

Dean Adams
7 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:49:55
Soon they will no longer be able to downplay Everton. With the impending news of the Bramley-Moore Dock stadium, we will become the shining beacon of the Premier League. Moshiri will become the next great owner and Koeman will become the greatest manager of EFC ever.

Of course, the BBC will just make a small footnote to inform the British public, but then again, it is like this with all things with the Biased Broadcasting Corporation!!

Tony Abrahams
8 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:52:31
I love football, but hate most of the shite spoken about it, by ex-players, who are getting paid good money to tell us very fuckin little! It's simply jobs for the boys, with nothing to really educate the viewers.

Ciarán McGlone
9 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:57:00
Can I ask why my post was removed?

I thought ToffeeWeb allowed disagreement?

Obviously not.

Paul Birmingham
10 Posted 20/03/2017 at 20:58:19
Fuck the BBC, as good as it once was when I was a lad (a long time ago), it now struggles and can't keep up with the likes of Sky or even BT Sport. They are past it and I reckon very soon, they'll be really struggling to get any sports for live or highlights showing.

We don't need them, we have class, style and manner, we know our football and the thing is that they don't prepare and really don't know us.

Kevin Tully
11 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:10:53
I remember a few years ago being absolutely amazed about how biased the BBC had become, especially towards our lovable neighbours.

I think one weekend, they had the usual double act of Hansen & Lawrensen, then the Sunday programme had Murphy & Fowler offering their boring opinions! Similarly, over on Sky and BT sport, you can be sure of at least 2 ex-reds offering their "insight" on all things Everton.

What is it about ex-Liverpool players wanting to be front and centre when their career is over? It's fucking bizarre!

Added in the "plucky little Everton, punching above our weight" bollocks peddled at every opportunity by Moyes & his pal, Bill, then we were always destined to be at the bottom of any billing.

It will take this new ground and plenty of silverware before we will be mentioned in the same breath as the usual suspects, but even then the media polluted by a full squad of redshites will do it's best to play down any success we might enjoy.

Viv Sharma
12 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:13:21
Im pretty sure here in the USA they acknowledged the cheers for Rom on NBCSN on several occasions. Lee Dixon and Arlo White. Decent commentary until the let graham LeSeux in the booth.

(I say "pretty sure" because I'm always reading the live forum during the game and maybe I'm confusing what was said there with what was on the box. I get so sucked into it I sometimes forget to watch the tele!)

Graham Mockford
13 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:16:31
"Everton fans like myself have always suspected that the media have always been stringently anti-Everton."

I was tempted to stop after that opening but unfortunately I didn't.

My advice is find a media source that reinforces your opinions or turn the sound down but stop with the nonsense conspiracy theories.

The best I saw this Saturday was someone on the forum complaining the BBC had taken two hours to update the league tables to reflect Everton in 6th but not spotting that the Everton site he was on still hadn't either.

Dan Davies
14 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:19:05
Then post it again, Ciaran. I personally don't think there is an agenda against Everton, they just see us as a club with history who have been treading water for twenty odd years.

To be spoken of as a big club alongside the obvious ones we need to start acting and performing like one – simple. Everton need to start winning things again. Then we might get the respect we think we deserve.

Brent Stephens
15 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:19:53
Paul, a "good" read, if for the wrong reasons. Excellent piece. I actually think a piece like that is worth sending to the Beeb, as a complaint.
Dermot Byrne
16 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:24:56
This is paranoia. Of course they make judgment on most interesting games. Everton. Not exactly headlines for a long while...

And also remember, they sell MotD abroad. What sells? Best advice, turn off the volume.

Ciarán McGlone
17 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:26:35
No need to post again Dan. I think yourself, Dermot and Graham have it covered.

Guy Hastings
18 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:40:05
If the BBC's coverage was any good, showing an nth of professionalism I, might get upset. That Shearer is now their only halfway competent pundit says it all. They have fuck-all in the way of rights, their commentators/ pundits couldn't get a job on their own MotD magazine.

The best thing they've got is MotD2 and the show that goes out on a Sunday lunchtime – which is a poor man's Sunday Supplement – TV made for radio but at least that utter shitehawk Green isn't anywhere near it.

What should really hurt them is that they are utterly irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. That Dan Walker is their front man, a man who lacks the personality of a bowl of tepid sago pudding with the opinions to match, sums them up.

Kevin Naylor
19 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:46:41
Funnily enough I was watching the 1966 FA Cup Final the other day and got the feeling Kenneth Wholsteholme sounded like he didn't want us to win, in fact when Wednesday went 2 up he said that should be that and there was over half-an-hour left. Even way back then, it appeared we weren't liked by the BBC.
Craig Fletcher
20 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:47:45
My piece, for what's it worth. In New Zealand you will only ever get fleeting pieces of news coverage about football in England, but what news there is is only about Liverpool, Chelsea, the Manchester clubs, Spurs and Arsenal. Leicester obviously got a mention last year, but they had to win the premier league title (not just finish top six, let alone top four!) to do it. The only time I hear about Everton is when they are actually playing one of the aforementioned "big teams". Even our win over the weekend which put us (albeit temporarily) in the top six, the media focus was on Arsenal and Arsene Wenger's fall from grace after the loss at WBA, not one news article about Everton's win.

If you were a kid growing up in New Zealand (or the majority of countries outside of the UK/Europe) I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that the English premier league had only six teams in it. Even when we finished 4th in 2004/05, I can't remember hearing much, or anything, about it in the local media.

Small wonder then, that you see kids growing up overseas wearing the obligatory Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool tops. It's not just the BBC, it's the greater media worldwide. And until we win the Premier League title a la Leicester, I doubt that will change.

Dermot Byrne
21 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:49:05
Very good, Guy. Just an institution and, like many in this country, staffed by irrelevant leeches that the stupid seem to keep wanting to give money to. (Whoops, had a political moment!)
Colin Glassar
22 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:53:14
A niece of mine works for the Beeb and she told me that from the director of programming downwards they are all RS, Red Mancs or Gooners but the Sports Department is full of RS (she hates football, btw, so is neutral).

I've been harping on about these buggers for years now. I've written to them, Ofcom and my MP (as I pay my license) all to no avail. The idea of a "fuck the BBC" might get them to at least ask the question.

Craig Fletcher
23 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:53:37
Forgot to say, if anything I think the BBC's coverage of Everton is quite well-balanced by comparison to other football news sources. I've wandered on to ESPN's (soccernet) website a couple of times, and if you don't like bias, you should probably give that a miss – often, the only time Everton is mentioned in a positive light, it is linked to an Everton player transfer-out rumour story.
Graham Mockford
24 Posted 20/03/2017 at 21:59:24
Kenneth Wolstenholme and Colin's niece proving the cultural and institutionalised anti-Everton bias of the BBC.

For the love of God, it must be the international break.

Colin Glassar
25 Posted 20/03/2017 at 22:08:51
Kenneth Wolstenholme was the last decent commentator they had, Graham. It's been all downhill since he retired.
Dan Davies
26 Posted 20/03/2017 at 22:10:36
Have you ever seen the film 'The Boat that Rocked'? If you haven't, have a look because to some people's minds there's a conspiracy here against Everton on that level. Madness.

No disrespect Paul. Don't take it the wrong way, mate, but what you're saying is the BBC have an agenda against Everton FC.

Why would they? What purpose would that serve? They've only got Match of the Day like! Why would they give a fuck?

Ray Roche
27 Posted 20/03/2017 at 22:37:27
Just to add petrol to the fire, those old enough may recall Catterick banning the media, which in the sixties was mainly the BBC, from Goodison and Bellfield. Consequently there is little video footage of the great 69-70 side or little footage of most of the sixties/seventies Everton sides compared with other clubs. There has been a suspicion ever since that the Beeb don't have Everton as their "go to" club where televised games are concerned.

Now, some may, rightly, claim that that was years ago but, funnily enough, Lineker, you know, the guy who presents MotD, has said himself that the hierarchy at MotD are all reds and he has to make a case for their games NOT to be on first every week. I read the actual quotation from Lineker myself some time ago,so tend to believe it.

And when you think that cuddly old "Lawro" has never tipped LFC to lose you might be forgiven for thinking that their IS a pro LFC, anti EFC agenda.

Adam Carey
28 Posted 20/03/2017 at 22:41:53
While I agree with the points made, it isn't just the BBC who are bad with football punditry. ITV, Channel 5 and Sky all bow to the mighty top 4, (or is it 5 or 6 now that Spurs have pushed Man Utd off the big table??).

We never really get the credit we deserve, but 25 years of mediocrity has seen to that. Knife to a gunfight and glass ceiling comments didn't help either.

However, I refuse to fork out 㿅 to Sky and BT a month to watch the odd Everton game, and am rarely bothered to watch other teams play all Sunday afternoon so MotD is my only way to catch up.

That said, well played Gary Lineker last weekend who made a point about football starting before 1992! This whole bollocks about Lukaku being our top league scorer and all the other Premier League statistic shite really grates. When a player knocks 61 goals in a season, then they can shout. I don't care how many players have scored 60 goals before the age of 24 since Sky took over...

Peter Warren
29 Posted 20/03/2017 at 22:44:05
Good article – although I don't think the BBC are biased but just bad punditry. Very frustrating.
Stan Schofield
30 Posted 20/03/2017 at 22:44:33
It's not a case of being bitter, it's simply the usual case of the media bring largely a bag of shite. It's OK watching MotD, but the focus should be on the football, what happens on the pitch, not the soap opera chit chat of so-called 'pundits'.

It really doesn't matter how the media handles Everton, because at the end of the day it's what we do on the pitch that matters. My red mates also think the media is nonsense, and did so well before The Sun's handling of Hillsborough.

Chill out, forget the media, it's a diversion from reality.

Ray Robinson
31 Posted 20/03/2017 at 22:46:30
I don't generally subscribe to conspiracy theories but what does make my blood boil is the fact that some Mondays on the local BBC North West news, in the sports report usually on at about 6:45, the Everton result / action from the previous weekend is often ignored altogether or briefly mentioned in passing. Bolton, Burnley, Blackpool, Rochdale, Morecambe, Fleetwood, Preston, Blackburn et al often get just as much or more coverage.

As far as local BBC is concerned, the Premier League only consists of Man Utd, Liverpool and Man City. I can more understand a certain bias towards the "bigger" clubs on national TV but not on local programmes.

Steve Pugh
32 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:01:16
Adam, I was beginning to think that I was going to have to mention Lineker's comment. At first I was disappointed that we were on fourth but the games before ours were Leicester (5 goals and champions) Arsenal (4 goals and above us) and Chelsea (only 3 goals but champions elect and deserve to be one of the first on every week because of it.)

If none of the big media companies want to show Everton games and discussion then maybe the club should try and buy the rights to all of our home games and put ToffeeTV on a higher plane than MUTV and the rest.

Colin Glassar
33 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:02:15
Jimmy Hill didn't like Everton or Liverpool and that's a fact!
Sue Brown
34 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:06:08
Even when spoken (hopefully) in jest, it riles me what some of the bastards get away with saying. In Saturday's Mail, Carragher... "After I met Romelu Lukaku two weeks ago, he suddenly decided not to sign his new Everton contract: mission accomplished!" – WTF!
John Daley
35 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:07:22
Given the numerous avenues now available to watch almost any football of your choosing, whenever you want, I don't see what possible attraction remains in the piss ant scraps Match Of The Day serves up. For that reason, more than any other, I have very little sympathy for those who fume while still opting to tune in. 

"Howard Webb, last season, referred to Goodison Park as the most intimidating ground to be a referee"

That's a good example actually. He did and someone immediately whacked a post on here taking umbrage to it. 'Insulting', 'Wouldn't get away with saying such a thing about some other club' etc.

Link

There may not be a pleothera of pundits out there rushing to praise Everton for every little achievement (because let's face it, there's been nothing major to big us up about for the majority of the last two decades), but nor is there a posse of media trained Pinkerton's being paid handsomely to take a public piss on any faint spark that could potentially burn bright blue.

Honestly, half of this 'anti-Everton agenda' is in your head and the other half can't help but leap out at you when you're listening intently for the merest hint of it, with your hand cupped round your ear, just waiting to cry 'BIASED BASTARD'. 

Who cares if a commentator said a goal came 'seconds' after Schneiderlin tugged a Hull players shirt but when counted out in saddo time it clocked in at 'more like half a bloody minute which I know is technically the same but, you have to admit, my phraseology is much less twattish to the Evertonian ear'?

What effect did those words have on anything (beyond triggering a transformation from Bruce Banner to 'The Incredulous Balk')? Did it alter the result? Take the shine off the scoreline? Make the goal less sweeter for blues or more insufferable for Tiger tossers?

What if he hadn't pointed out the 'pull', or said something like "Half a minute?? That's ages! My wife's already working the wet wipe between her legs by then"? I'm sure, somewhere in viewerville an unreasonably vexed Hull supporter would be getting very het up about how there's an irrefutable Beeb agenda to gloss over obvious injustices perpetrated against their club so as to keep them on their arse where they believe they belong:


Dear Mr Lineker,

I always used to like you when you were goal hanger for Leicester with your sensible haircut, tight shorts and glistening thighs.

However, having heard what one of your buddies said about it not mattering that Morgan Schneiderlein tore a human skin cheese string off a heroic Hull players chest, because it happened half a minute before Everton (your former club, coincidentally) finished the move off, I have to say... I now think you've become something of a Rantallion and big-time Bescumberist.

In more modern parlance, you Sir, are a strangely low scrote swinging shit spewer and the 'Hull City Supporters Club Cunt Silencers' herby give you and your MotD cohorts notice that we have you in our cross-hairs:

Link

Farewell most heartily,

Dorothy Tuttle.
Head Sicario
Hull City Supporters Club Cunt Silencers 

John Raftery
36 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:07:31
Given one of the joint editors of this website described our win against WBA as uninspiring, it was hardly surprising the BBC relegated it to the back end of MotD. I think once we are in the top four we will see our matches move nearer to the start of the programme.

As for the Lukaku coverage from what I read and heard before Saturday's game all the media outlets were gearing up to report a hostile crowd reception for the player. Their sense of disappointment when that did not materialise was palpable.

Much national media coverage of football is superficial, lacking genuine insight as well as a tenuous grasp of the facts. The BBC is no worse than the others in that respect.

David Graves
37 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:14:39
Sorry but the conspiracy theory falls apart in this instance if you actually know who the commentator Steve Wilson supports!
Colin Glassar
38 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:17:49
I only watch MotD because it's like a tradition. I've never really liked it (despite it being the only footy we could watch on the telly when we were kids) but it's like watching Scrooge on Christmas Day or eating soggy chips after a few pints on a Friday night. It's part of our social fabric like Corrie and shite weather – you just put up with it.

Brian Williams
39 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:31:21
What you have to understand is that although our history and number of league titles mean a lot to us it means very little to Sky and the premier league. Both Sky and the Premier League are about NOW.

Our history doesn't sell, isn't a big draw, and means nothing to fans the world over who view the premier league as the birth of football.

There's no conspiracy, and as hard as it may be to accept we're just NOT big news. Fast forward five years when we've been playing for a season or two in the Royal Blue Mersey stadium and finished in the top four once or twice and things will be very different.

We'll be current news. You have to remember in this world of Facebook this and snapchat that and instant fucking everything. Sky are selling to people who want what's current and fresh. Selling to a world where history to most of them is the year 2000!

If we want to be talked about, be first on MotD and have pundits fawning over us we have to earn it in the present, not expect it for our past.

Ross Taylor
40 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:34:35
I work for BBC Sport and can tell you that any notion of bias against Everton is frankly nonsense. And the suggestion that it's all RS in senior management isn't true either. In fact there's quite a few fellow Evertonians.

Hate to let the truth get in the way of a good story but there you go. I'll pick up with the Head of Football on some of the inaccuracies though!

Colin Hughes
41 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:39:13
This LFC media bias has gone on for years, it's not just BBC, there is nobody worse than BT Sport who in their 3 years of coverage have shown far more Liverpool games than anyone else, despite them not winning a trophy in the said time.

It's almost like they are all run by middle-aged men yearning for the good old days of the 70s and 80s when the RedShite where always flavour of the month – Norwich even devised a fanzine at the time "Liverpool are on the telly again" such was the TV obsession with them.

Dave Randles
42 Posted 20/03/2017 at 23:50:52
The point about the BBC's commentary is a good one. I'm pretty sure they don't commentate live and merely comment on the edited highlights. Hence the 30 second thing with Schneiderlin's shirt pull.
Andrew James
43 Posted 20/03/2017 at 00:04:27
Ross

The problem isn't always the BBC. It is the pundits, who I believe are like contractors (?) or jobbing actors.

Many of them are inaccurate and, quite frankly, stupid. They pull things out of the air which are wrong but because people don't know any better, it becomes "fact". Ian Wright recently claimed Everton under Moyes were up and down in terms of league finishes. He was tapping into his first 4 seasons but ignorant of the other 7 that followed where we were always in the top half.

Hartson just makes words up. Garth Crooks is so Spurs biased with his team of the week it's ridiculous. This isn't me moaning from Everton paranoia, this is me complaining because they are so poor or have an agenda.

That said, the likes of Mark Chapman, Steve Claridge and Danny Mills give you the impartial but well informed opinions and questions you want, despite you know they have allegiances.

Derek Thomas
44 Posted 21/03/2017 at 00:26:24
Man City were a joke before they started winning stuff... the answers in our own hands or should that be feet.

Win stuff – get noticed.

Andrew James
45 Posted 21/03/2017 at 00:33:18
Derek – you are right but, errr... Spurs???
Derek Thomas
46 Posted 21/03/2017 at 00:56:26
Andrew @45; one word; London. I had an argument with a Spurs fan some years ago, so I told him list in order of preference, the last 10 cup final / Title sides You Yourself have seen... I'm still waiting for a reply.

They were nothing before Bill Nicholson and not much after. They get by with a few cup wins and 'The London Weighting Allowance'... which tbf, in this sky age worth quite a lot.

And when (except in there own minds) did Newcastle become a 'big' club... this is the Newcastle that have been twice relegated in 8(?)yrs, who last won the League the year Before Dixie scored his 60.

I remember a Bill Tidy cartoon around 1968, were a blue and a red were in the TV repair shop with a TV on the counter... 'Can you fix this mate, all I can get is United and Leeds on it.'

Things never change only the names of the guilty.

Clive Mitchell
47 Posted 21/03/2017 at 00:56:49
The basic premise of this article is right - but if we want to show we're objective, you'd have to acknowledge Man City are also ignored about as much as it's possible to ignore a side making so many waves. It gives you an idea about how much attention we'd get if we won the title and were regularly in the Champions League.

That applies to all the media, but the BBC is utterly dire in its own special way – it's football coverage for your non-scouse girlfriend's Dad who buys into all the RS and Busby Babes stuff and thinks 3-3's a good game.

Davie Turner
48 Posted 21/03/2017 at 01:19:39
I actually think the BBC has done us okay this season. The main issue with position on the show is that we are usually somewhere in the middle, but then until very recently we have the joys of being in the middle, league-wise, not quite Europe challengers not being dragged down. Consequently we end up in the middle, if we continue to push on then it will be interesting to see if it changes.

Don't know if anyone has the stats but I think we are as often first two as last two.

Oh and Morgan had fouled the boy, it went for us but I have seen them highlight the same for other sides so didn't bother me, some commentators are better than others.

I do seem to remember that we definitely got a rough ride when weekly highlights were on ITV. And I definitely prefer Lineker to fecking Jim "Moshiri is my best pal and told me this" White.

Raymond Fox
49 Posted 21/03/2017 at 01:43:31
While agreeing that BBC don't do us any favours.
Brian 39 pretty much sums up my thoughts on the article.
James Marshall
50 Posted 21/03/2017 at 02:19:03
The whole thing about pundits is neither here nor there anyway – football is, and always has been, about opinions and whether you played the game at Premier League, International or Sunday League level doesn't give anyone the right to have a more meaningful opinion than anyone else.

Shearer et al have their opinions, and we all have ours – none of them are right or wrong, they're just opinions. It's what makes football the game it is.

I don't listen to them by the way – I always start watch MotD around 20 minutes after it starts so I can fast forward through them all blathering on about the games, and teaching me about formations, and who does what – I don't need to be taught about football, since I've watched it and formed my own opinions for almost 40 years already.

I can see the formation, I can see who's doing what on and off the ball, and I know you all can as well - none of us need an ex-pro to tell us what we can all already see. The only use I've ever got from it, was my America ex-girlfriend who enjoyed watching them draw pretty coloured lines on the screen so she could work out what the fuck was going on.

Assuming none of you are American women brought up watching baseball, then I assume you all understand what you've been watching as well as I do!

Eugene Ruane
51 Posted 21/03/2017 at 02:26:02
'Ross Taylor # 40 - I work for BBC Sport and can tell you..'

BBC Sport?

BOOOOOO!!!

Suggestion, let's give Ross a taste of his own medicine, move his post to last position on this thread and let TW pundits Richard Dodd, Damian Wilde and Fintan Spode give expert opinion on it.

Goose, gander etc.

John Codling
52 Posted 21/03/2017 at 03:51:22
MotD should be renamed: The BBC Pension scheme for has-been millionaires telling us the fucking obvious.

Leon Osman has now joined the ranks on Football Focus, Who next Tony Hibbert.

Brian (#39) is right: last season you could not get a shirt in Thailand unless it was Leicester City's... now it has been moved to its normal spot, as a floorcloth. The Chelsea shirt has taken over for the time being. Before Christmas it was the Liverpool shirt which has now been relegated to floor duties. Man Utd & Man City coming up on the rails?

Kristian Boyce
53 Posted 21/03/2017 at 04:08:08
A part of the problem is that many In the media are in their late '30s to late '50s, and grew up being fans of the Liverpool team of the '70s and '80s. The RS domination of pundits is testament to media guys hiring their heroes.

It's all part of a cycle and I image that the dominance of Man Utd in the 90's will soon have a shift away from the RS bias, as fans who were kids in the 90's will soon have influential roles in the media.

Another part of the problem is that we struggled to create a brand image for ourselves. Only recently since the new ownership have we really started to push our 'brand' commercially. Its been brought up numerous times over the years how short sighted the club have been in promoting themselves nationally and internationally.

One major one was completely missing the boat when Tim Howard was probably the most talked about person in the States after the World Cup. What did we do to capture this potential new market, whilst having the US's most famous player on our books? We took a trip to Thailand to play the team who are owned by Thai's, Leicester!

The six teams above us in the league built on the the 'brand' they have, which has projected them to a global audience. While they were doing that, you could only buy our kits from two stores within the city limits.

Eric Myles
54 Posted 20/03/2017 at 04:13:36
Ray (#27), talking about Lawro, his predictions table has the redshite 3 points clear at the top of the prem with us 10 points behind in 8th!
Alan J Thompson
55 Posted 21/03/2017 at 04:26:21
Why all the fuss, it took David Coleman years to work out Norman Hunter had only one left leg, well I think he worked it out although I'm having some difficulty with that phraseology.

If you really must do something about it then email the BBC asking how many of their "pundits" have had any sort of football managerial position never mind a successful one.

Much ado....

Brian Porter
56 Posted 21/03/2017 at 06:28:01
Adam Carey (#28), and anyone who has Android on your phone, tablet etc might look like to download an app called Live Football Pro. (You may find it as Live Football (Full). It's free and you can request a stream for any game anywhere in the world.

I watched Saturday's game live on TNS and the US commentators and pundits were effusive in their praise for the Everton crowd getting behind Rom. The half-time coverage covered Everton being the in form team of 2017. Totally unbiased coverage of the match and not one reference to any other team. So refreshing!
George Stuart
57 Posted 21/03/2017 at 07:58:26
Dean Adams [7].
Sorry Dean, Thursdays football headlines will be "Scintillating Utd. academy wonder kid stymied in hat trick bid by broken lace (failing to score)" ."Alex Ferguson was reported to say "get out of my garden you BBC ponce". This is bound to add fuel to the rivalry between Man Utd and Liverpool, which Man Utd are winning.

And finally, some other team or other is building a small 50,000+ seater stadium in the north somewhere. But will they be able to find the half billion pound price tag? Man Utd could easily.
Farhad Moshiri was born in Iran.

(Disclaimer: all of the forgoing was intended as an ironic jest)

Gary Leonard
58 Posted 21/03/2017 at 08:22:38
Well said. A spot on analysis.
Brent Stephens
59 Posted 21/03/2017 at 08:37:44
On reflection, quite right to say if something gets on your tit, don't keep looking at it and don't get into a long diatribe about it. We never see that on TW, do we!
Andy Meighan
64 Posted 21/03/2017 at 09:03:23
Couldn't agree more actually, Paul. The BBC are a disgrace and you made some valid points there but I will take issue with you regarding the Hull game. I thought it was Alistair Mann reporting on our game and not Steve Wilson... I could be wrong.

And come on, Paul, do you really think we'd beat Chelsea away 13-0? I mean I know we're banging a few in like but come on... Maybe 12-0 at home (ahem) .Anyway, I enjoyed that. And let's see what coverage they give us IF the ground move gets announced. Won't be much, believe me.

Craig Walker
65 Posted 21/03/2017 at 09:36:55
Last Sunday on Sky, RS v Man City. Not content with having Sounness and Redknapp in the studio, they get Carragher chipping in with co-commentary. The only person with any City affiliation on the team was Niall Quinn, and I tend to associate him with Sunderland primarily. If you turn 5-live on, you'll get Alan Green giving his usual pro-RS opinions. The only pundits I have any time for are Pat Nevin, Kevin Kilbane and Chris Waddle.

I remember in the 80s how my dad would get irate because in those days, the BBC news would show the goals from just one game of that day. Every week it would be the RS even though Everton were top of the league. It was bred in to me from then on to look for media bias.

Here's my prediction, we'll lose to the RS and Man United and we'll be first on MotD both times.

Ross Taylor
66 Posted 21/03/2017 at 09:59:06
Eugene @ 51,

Happy to play the pantomime villain. Stick me at the end of the thread.

Maybe I'll then go and moan about it on an Internet forum. :)

Andrew @ 43 fair enough, everyone has pundits they prefer over others. I just wanted to dispel the inferred conspiracy theory about some sort of specific anti-EFC agenda.

Stan Schofield
67 Posted 21/03/2017 at 10:16:53
Ross, whether or not there is bias against Everton, most of the commentary and reporting is largely inane. The BBC seems to specialise in trivia and gossip, and particularly in their football coverage, and they're not a lot different from other media outlets. They just try to present a veneer of relative respectability.
Eugene Ruane
68 Posted 21/03/2017 at 10:39:05
Ross, just to be clear, I don't for one second believe MOTD has any (conscious) anti-Everton plan.

Sure there seems to be a long-standing Liverpool / Man Utd love affair but that's not quite the same thing.

David Ellis
69 Posted 21/03/2017 at 10:41:20
There is no conspiracy. We are not a big six club because our revenue is lower than those in that club. We don't get mentioned because we have fewer fans nationally and globally than the big 6 so all media outlets are incentivised to mention them and not us. On top of this we as Evertonians are subconsciously sensitive to any possible slight against our club (running order in MOTD – who cares!).

To change this we need to win things and drive revenue up so we can compete.

History is not really relevant to this discussion but I do wish the media would bring it up more as the ignorance of the past (particularly pre 1992) is shocking and annoying. I educate all those within ear range as much as possible – especially my son's buddies (13 years old) who all support big six clubs and know nothing about them at all.

Thomas Lennon
70 Posted 21/03/2017 at 10:46:54
One thing Moshiri is clearly doing is building our brand. He will then be able to sell that brand to sponsors. Our reappearence on TV outside of matchday is one result – I would suggest we have rarely invited Sky or BBC to Finch Farm for extended articles outside of FA Cup Final day for years. The top five have been doing that for decades.

Journalists need stories to sell, we haven't provided enough of them until now. Opening up the club has its downside but so has secrecy.

We have only just started to engage the media in ways they will respond to.

Colin Glassar
71 Posted 21/03/2017 at 10:57:26
Ross, do you deny the fact that the BBC still thinks the world begins and ends in London?

If you don't then you have to accept their overwhelming bias towards Arsenal, Man Utd and, in particular, Liverpool.
Chris Gould
72 Posted 21/03/2017 at 11:02:31
David, are you sure that Spurs and Man City have more fans nationally and globally than us?

I don't think fanbase has anything to do with the media's perception of us. It's purely down to recent achievements and ambition. Until this season we've had none of either for decades. Now we are showing ambition and the media will, slowly and possibly begrudgingly, acknowledge it.

Tony Pullis said a few weeks ago that there was now a top 7 and that Everton were a part of it. We've closed the gap and need to show that we now belong in that top group. Just like with Spurs and Man City, the media will accept us as one of the big boys once we show that we're there to stay.

David Graves
73 Posted 21/03/2017 at 11:04:16
Credit to Ross for raising his head above the BBC parapet!

I may be in the minority but to think of someone sitting in front of the TV with a stopwatch working out how much coverage we have on MotD just sounds a bit petty. What's next – sending the Head of BBC Sport a spreadsheet showing the running order of previous programmes?

My personal choice is to do as others have suggested and watch MotD on the Sky box and fast-forward the pundits. But that's my choice. If we were in the top 4, I'd hope that we'd be 1st or 2nd up more frequently but Saturday's game wasn't a thriller and shouldn't have been scheduled any earlier. And I thought Steve Wilson did a good job of his commentary!

As it stands, we are the best of the rest and I think we get an appropriate amount of coverage. Don't forget the dark days of the 1980s when it seemed like every single winner of Goal of the Month was a Liverpool player.

Brian Harrison
74 Posted 21/03/2017 at 11:06:17
The BBC has for some reason always had ex-Reds on their panel, started with Hansen and Lawrenson, now they have Danny Murphy on MotD. BT Sports have Michael Owen and Steve Macmanaman, but ex-Blues rarely make an appearance.

So I don't think it's the media being anti-Everton but they are certainly not pro-Everton.

Also, being ex-reds, they always look for positives when talking about Liverpool despite them not winning the Premier League ever. Also Everton have never competed to win the Premier League, and we have never been able to splash the cash until recently. So that colours the views of these pundits, and most have never watched us live.

So their take is why would the league's top scorer not be playing for one of the so-called top clubs? Also, now Barkley has hit form again, they say the same thing about him. Most completely ignore the fact that we now have a billionaire owner and are preparing to move to a new ground.

The pundits still regard us as a club battling for 7th to 10th position and not one to trouble the so-called big boys. Now whether we like it or not the only thing that will change their opinion is if we start challenging for a top 4 spot on a regular basis.

Let's not forget until the last few years Spurs were viewed in the same way as we are now, could possibly win a cup if lucky but would never win the league. Spurs have now changed that perception with results and thats the only way we will change the mindset of these pundits and journalists.

Chris Williams
75 Posted 21/03/2017 at 11:17:42
The show is just mediocre, outdated, and irrelevant. It's contributors are boring, lazy and ignorant. The show reeks of complacency like a cozy, out of touch lads only club, its members talking to themselves, delighted with themselves and oblivious to the views of others.

No conspiracy, just shite, and dying a lingering death in the public gaze, awaiting the coup de grace.

Don't watch it and thus hasten its demise.

Raymond Fox
77 Posted 21/03/2017 at 11:43:00
James 50, ditto I always record MOTD and whiz though the boring bits.

As far as pundits go, their there to pad the show out. In fact all TV shows now do it, like showing the presenter walking along to nowhere in particular, and then telling you again what they told you 5 bleeding minutes ago!

James Flynn
78 Posted 21/03/2017 at 11:47:45
You win, you get the ink and air-time. Leicester just proved it.

And agree with the few comments above, about Everton coverage by NBC here in the States. I can't complain. We're treated fairly.

Saturday morning THE story, well-covered, was Everton and Lukaku. Nice to see.

Regarding studio pundits, I usually just mute the TV and wait for the game to come on or come back on. Especially NFL games. Ugh.

Lately, though, I do leave it on during NBC soccer coverage because Shaka Hislop and Kyle Martino are pretty good.

Don Alexander
79 Posted 21/03/2017 at 11:57:24
The second paragraph of #53 is the most telling point re our status, or lack of it. Well said Kristian. I for one am still perplexed and worried by the ongoing presence of Kenwright and Elstone in the club's future.
James Marshall
80 Posted 21/03/2017 at 11:59:33
Colin@71 – Man Utd and the RS are not in London – the clue is in their names, Manchester and Liverpool ;)
Dave Pritchard
81 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:00:02
Yes BBC focus on the top 4/5 media darlings. Those bigging up Sky and BT though need to understand that these organisations are no different. BT are probably the worst offenders with their love of RS as shown recently by their picking of their FA Cup ties that were not the best ones on offer.
James Hughes
82 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:14:21
Ross there is a conspiracy at the Beeb, they just don't let you in on it, because you support Everton!

Truth is we all know if we start winning things consistently, we will be given more air time. Whilst the article points out our proud history it isn't going to help sell the club, when it's last trophy was won in the last century.

Kristian (#53), well saiid, sir. Whilst the trip to Thailand had been arranged before the World Cup, very little appeared to be done to build on Tim Howard's raised profile.

James Marshall
83 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:22:52
There is no anti-Everton conspiracy - there is however a bias towards the top-4/5/6
Terry Underwood
84 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:24:47
I almost choked when I heard Le Saux suggest that Rom might move house to Mordor. I do not subscribe to the "big club" idea. There are mega rich clubs, there are universally supported clubs and there are famous old "sleeping giant" clubs...(like us) Ask fans of Villa, Forest, etc, they will consider themselves as big clubs.

Before the Russian millions took effect, Chelsea were a yo yo club, always getting relegated then promoted a few years later. I still think they are a nasty chavvy little club, yet the media have their tongues wedged firmly up CFC's arse.
Jim Harrison
85 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:33:33
Robbie Savage has said before that he says controversial things on purpose, I think that's what Crooks had in mind. Stir the pot.

I don't watch BBC coverage as they are all smug knobs.

Ciarán McGlone
86 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:40:06
I would contest the coverage on NBC being great.. Robbie Mustoe talks as much crappier as Garth Crooks.
Eric Myles
87 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:45:28
Brian (#56), is that app by Beyond Infinity??
Dave Pritchard
88 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:46:08
JIm 85, spot on. A pundit is seen to be doing their job by their employers when the fans are discussing what they've said. The best policy is therefore to ignore them as if nobody commented on their utterings they might get the push.

I'm in the record MOtD and fast forward through the talking camp. On live games go and make a cup of tea at half time and switch on at kick off and switch off at the end. Saves getting angry.
Phil (Kelsall) Roberts
89 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:51:33
I was pleasantly surprised to hear at the start of the Monday Night Club on Radio 5 Live last night that Chapman (about 11mins) talking about Wenger's demise and the competition for the title and Champions League and that now it is a top 7 including us! We will get better and bigger because of Moshiri and Koeman.

He then excluded us from the next question but simply because we have not been a title winning and Champions League team so our fans will not be disappointed if we finish 5-7th because above that is a bonus for the next few years. But fans of the other 6 will have to get used to the fact that they will not win the title every year (and it has been ever in Premier League for the reds or 55 years for Spurs and we have won it 4 times since then) and 3 of the teams will not be in the Champions League. But a clear recognition from Chapman that we are joining the top 7.

Maybe we will have to wait a few years, but I think we will be the new Man City. The northern Reds bias over the Blues. And I think the anti-City is because of their vast wealth that they should win everything every year but mess it up. 2 Titles, 1 FA Cup and 2 League Cups is a poor return for 8 seasons of investment. It is just a worry that we too may take more than a couple of years to be consistently winning trophies with the greater competition now in the PL.

And James Marshall #80 - the clubs may play outside London but the majority of their supporters live there. And think about it 500k in Liverpool, even 49% Reds = 245000. 8M in London = 3% reds.

Ste Traverse
90 Posted 21/03/2017 at 12:53:45
I could only read half that article as it's utterly dripping with paranoia.

All I can say is that I visit forums of other clubs and everyone of them believes the media is against them.

I also believe football fans are ridiculously over-sensitive to what pundits say. This won't go down well with many, but I reckon ex-reds in the media have been generally fair to us over the years.

I'd have Hansen back on MOTD anyday of the week for starters.

If this club starts winning things again and playing regular CL football our profile will go up, until then we'll always be lagging behind other clubs.

Paul Holmes
91 Posted 21/03/2017 at 13:01:10
We need to sell off the BBC and use the licence fee to fund a more balanced news and sports programmes. Watching the news on the BBC with their biased liberal commentators is bad enough, now it's spreading to the sports channels, like on Sky and BT.

I just watch the Everton show on Friday at 7pm on Freeview to get round these propaganda so-called commentators who, let's face it, probably read from a prepared autocue than think for themselves!
Ross Taylor
92 Posted 21/03/2017 at 13:03:04
Colin @ 71
That isn't a fact, that is your opinion, which you're entitled to (like Stan @ 67). I respect that. But I would have to disagree. BBC Sport is based in Salford - it's where MOTD and the vast majority of sports content is produced, so I wouldn't say it was London-centric at all.

James @ 82
That made me laugh - maybe so! I'll never know, hey.
I agree - success on the pitch will build profile and in turn greater exposure and focus on us, not just on the Beeb but across all broadcasters.

Eugene @ 68
I see where you're coming from. Plus you didn't boo me this time, which is a bonus!

Colin Glassar
93 Posted 21/03/2017 at 13:34:09
Your point being James (80)?
�ystein Heggelund
94 Posted 21/03/2017 at 14:40:47
Two rather telling things to note on the BBC's 'Live reporting' page right now.

First there is a news item about Livermore: "There is a strong chance that Jake Livermore could get a cap for England in the Westfalenstadion – Gareth Southgate is not blessed with too many options in the centre of midfield at the moment." No mention of Barkley, which could have been natural given his reintroduction in the squad.

He is mentioned once, though, in a gossip link in the top left corner: "Tottenham leading race to sign Barkley".
Charles Barrow
95 Posted 21/03/2017 at 15:36:05
I agree with Ste (apart from welcoming Hansen back!).

When (not if) Everton regularly are in the top 4 we'll get plenty of attention. What is true is that the top 6 do completely dominate the media outlets. Other clubs (including Everton) deserve much better from the BBC as a national publicly funded organisation.

But I'm sure Ross is fighting our corner.

Barry Rathbone
96 Posted 21/03/2017 at 18:21:45
Consistent challenger or flaky like Newcastle with infighting and yo yo promotion/relegation antics gets you national attention.

Overall recent decades at Goodison have been as eventful as washed out beige. We get the attention we deserve.

Terence Beresford
97 Posted 21/03/2017 at 18:32:03
James Marshall@ 80.
No, but there fans are!
Ross Taylor
98 Posted 21/03/2017 at 18:56:36
I certainly am Charles, I certainly am
James Marshall
99 Posted 21/03/2017 at 19:07:18
Colin, you said something about the BBC thinking the world begins and ends in London, then alluded to Arsenal, Man Utd and the RS.

I was pointing out that only one of those clubs is in London.

Colin Glassar
100 Posted 21/03/2017 at 19:20:49
In general terms, the BBC is only interested, imo, in what happens in London James. As for their coverage of football it is, imo, definitely in favour of those three teams I mentioned.

Like I said, this is my perception and it's been going on for as long as I remember (even when united were in the old second division).

I still get the feeling that Chelsea, Man City and now Spurs are looked down upon by the hierarchy at BBC sports.

James Marshall
101 Posted 21/03/2017 at 19:25:09
If they're only interested in teams in London (in your view), why do you include Man Utd and Liverpool? Neither of those teams is in London.

Am I missing the point here?

Chris Williams
102 Posted 21/03/2017 at 19:27:53
Colin

I think that many of those in the BBC sports hierarchy in the position to influence things like MOTD probably spent their formative years and early careers in the 70 s and 80s, and as such may be influenced by the perceived pre eminence of that club in those years.

An outlook as outdated as MOTD.

Colin Glassar
103 Posted 21/03/2017 at 19:30:11
James, I said that the Beeb is primarily interested in what goes on in London, in news terms that is. Watch their morning show, it's all London this, London that.

When it comes to football they have their favourites and that includes two teams from the NW.

Peter Howard
104 Posted 21/03/2017 at 19:36:02
James (#80)

"Man Utd" do not play in Manchester.

James Marshall
105 Posted 21/03/2017 at 19:48:56
Colin - thank you for clarifying :)
Peter Lee
106 Posted 21/03/2017 at 21:45:23
The regular paranoia exhibited on this site on this subject, whether or not it's the theme of the thread, only feeds into other people's perception of us and our club as "small".

We do protest too much.

Couldn't care less about MOTD or what pundits say one way or the other.

Regarding pundits; a few years ago I counted 14 ex-Everton players managing in the four divisions. Many more were assistants/coaches. This contrasts with the reluctance of many of the RS former players to take that plunge, preferring to talk about the game rather than impact on it.

Ste Traverse
107 Posted 21/03/2017 at 22:59:41
MOTD last Saturday even mentioned about Lukaku becoming the first Everton player since Gary Lineker to score at least 20 league goals in a season, then later showed a picture of our former number 8 in the 'Lineker bib' kit he wore during his season with us.
Andy Crooks
108 Posted 21/03/2017 at 23:13:41
Our football this season has often been functional, and that is okay. However, we have, in my view, not been what warrants first on MOTD. Frankly, I find the notion of an anti Everton conspiracy utterly ludicrous.

The idea that the BBC is riddled with reds (Liverpool supporters, I mean) who do Everton down is just fucking mad.

James MacGlashan
110 Posted 22/03/2017 at 07:32:59
In the '80s, on a Saturday afternoon, after the matches had finished, the North West news was on. It included the local football results. Often these were read by David Davies (later to be FA bod). Week after week, ALL the Iocal results from Division One were read out and without fail they missed out one. Everton. I remember as a boy wondering why...

"To miss out just one team surely has to be deliberate", I said to my Dad. As used to it as he was, he was still incandescent with rage. As the newsreader, you don't go through the scores beforehand and accidentally miss out just one. It was if we hadn't played. If the North West doesn't recognise us....

James MacGlashan
112 Posted 22/03/2017 at 09:36:04
Everton Free School has just featured on BBC2 Victoria Derbyshire programme. Good item. Only downside was that in the studio they showed our badge as the previous one. The one that none of us liked even though we did very well that season.
Steve Carse
113 Posted 22/03/2017 at 10:09:26
I'm not too bothered about the BBC's perspectives on Everton.

What did it for me was when English clubs were allowed back into European competition in 1989 (?) the BBC signed up to covering all Liverpool's European games for the season, and advertised this 'coup' under the promotional banner 'Reds Back In Europe'! How tasteless was that given they were out of Europe in the first place because their supporters had killed 39 spectators.

Joe Foster
114 Posted 22/03/2017 at 10:32:05
I agree. I have not seen any Everton supporters on the endless cookery shows or the many Victorian dramas. Disgraceful.
Michael Coffey
115 Posted 22/03/2017 at 11:06:13
Look no further than today's BBC news website. Ronnie Moran's death is the fourth-ranked world news topic, ahead of another north Korean missile test. It's almost a parody of this thread.
Tim Wardrop
116 Posted 22/03/2017 at 12:17:03
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!

Honestly, the things people moan about.

Paul Burns
117 Posted 22/03/2017 at 13:15:56
Tim if you don't want to hear people moaning about football related matters, what the fuck are you doing here? The whole media are a disgrace. The great Roy Vernon died with barely a mention while Ronny Moran is hailed despite his best work being done sitting on a bench.

All of players throughout history have been undervalued. Our records put most clubs and players in the shade. They scored against the same teams as Best and Charlton yet you'd think they didn't count given the lack of recognition they receive. The BBC would rather show the shite scoring a penalty than a brilliant Everton goal, don't get a TV licence, let them wither and die.

Ste Traverse
118 Posted 22/03/2017 at 13:35:13
I can't believe we've got people cry-arsing because there's a lot of coverage of the death of Ronnie Moran, a respected figure in the game.

Utterly sad and pathetic too.

Dermot Byrne
119 Posted 22/03/2017 at 13:39:16
Paul 117 : "if you don't want to hear" the media, "what the fuck are you doing" consuming it ?
John Daley
120 Posted 22/03/2017 at 14:58:26
"I can't believe we've got people cry-arsing because there's a lot of coverage of the death of Ronnie Moran"

Ste,

Some of our conspiracy theorists probably can't believe the poor bugger didn't hang on stubbornly for another 24 hours, purely and simply to divert some of the (potential) media spotlight away from a 'suspected' Everton stadium announcement.

Having now lost his fight, they're even more flabbergasted that the BBC didn't sit on the news until tomorrow, as some sort of back-up plan, just in case 'that bloody Anderson fella' hasn't gotten his arse mixed up with his gob again.


James MacGlashan
121 Posted 22/03/2017 at 15:23:08
Re Ronnie Moran coverage. I haven't got an issue with the coverage. SSN has been on it for that past 10 minutes and still going. All and sundry being interviewed. No issue. But what was the coverage of Alex Young 's passing? It was mentioned and had it on the newsbar at the bottom of the screen... I can't remember much else.

The day after he died, SSN was at Finch Farm. Alex wasn't even mentioned in the preamble and Koeman wasn't spoken to about it nor was Steve Walsh. Can someone tell me if it was mentioned at all on that visit? It's fairness of coverage that's all I am after. Though in reality, I gave up on that about 30 years ago.
James MacGlashan
122 Posted 22/03/2017 at 15:29:39
Seriously, for those of you who don't think that Everton has received disproportionate coverage over the decades then I am sorry you are mistaken.

There are many, many fans who have watched, listened to and read media coverage of EFC with disbelief. It is not conspiracy theory, the evidence is there. Has been since Catterick's time.

Peter Morris
123 Posted 22/03/2017 at 15:42:03
I think that there are a number of forces in play here and I think they can be looked at together so as to assemble a plausible 'conspiracy theory'. Trump and the swivel eyes he surrounds himself with are masters at it. Just listen to Sean Spicer!

For me, and for what it's worth, I think the following points hold some water.

1. The BBC (and for that matter Sky, BT and ITV) aren't so much 'biased against' Everton. I think it is certainly true that they are 'ambivalent toward' Everton. That's very different. This is largely down to our lack of success and box office for too many years, in particular the Premier League era. It is in our hands, possibly for the first time in 50 years, to do something about this at last.

2. The centres of economic power have polarised and concentrated in England around London and secondly Manchester. Birmingham has lost out, so has Liverpool.

Liverpool rarely features, as a small example, on the map when the weather bulletin comes on after BBC News, but Manchester ALWAYS does, sometimes on its own. It's the same in most newspapers. Liverpool is regarded as a third tier city. This affects the image of Everton I think.

3.The visual and printed media are largely based in London, or regionally in Manchester, so their correspondents live within the hinterlands of either city. They look at the world through London and Manchester prisms. This is especially noticeable to me since BBC Sport moved to Salford.

4. I think this has made the task of Manchester City, with their new money, much easier to gate crash the natural order of 'Big Clubs'. I believe it would have been much tougher for Everton, with the same resources, the same success on the pitch, to secure the same outcome. That said, how much tougher would it be for a Southampton, or a Sunderland? Leicester City won the Premier League last season. They just might win the Champions League this season. However,they'll never get regarded as one of the elite. On the flip side, if Leeds re-emerged as a football powerhouse, I think they would be welcomed into the 'elite' club, because Leeds is seen as a 'fashionable city'. Likewise is Bristol. It would be fascinating to see what would happen if either of their clubs ever got their act together.

5. Liverpool FC (but NOT the city) uniquely have membership of this elite club, no matter where they finish or how they are performing. Maybe they are seen as a 'national' club, a bit like Juventus in Italy. Their Norwegian fan base certainly give them that air. The same applies to Manchester United, who still filled all the press column inches, and still dominated the TV highlights programmes, even when they spent a season in Division 2! In all of this, Everton are just a local tribe ,and an impoverished one at that,from North Liverpool.

6. This sort of 'contrived reality', or 'natural order' as some in the media call it, comes through in subtle ways. If one of the TV companies runs a trailer for the weekend fixtures, you know who will feature in the footage. If any of these 'elite' clubs draws a match, they are always 'held'. It is never they who are doing the holding, no matter how the game went. This happened in our home draw with Man Utd this season. It was a very evenly balanced affair, but it was universally reported that Everton 'held' Manchester United.

In summary, it would be nice if Everton could gate crash entry to the elite media club, as that would be a clear sign we are doing it on the pitch, but I'm not really that bothered. However,as the 'second' club in a city largely ignored in media circles, that will be a tall order. All that matters to me is Everton being successful and being a great club to support.

There was a very positive piece on Victoria Derbyshire today about the work being done at the Everton Free School to educate excluded children. That's something that means more to me than being one of the media 'darling' clubs.

William Cartwright
124 Posted 22/03/2017 at 15:51:38
In light of many examples as described in many of the the responses above, let's accept for the sake of discussion that the BBC's anti-Everton bias, coupled with the pro-Liverpool bias, is what really upsets a lot of Evertonians. In life we accept that 'conspiracies' do exist, and that by association so do conspiracy theories, whether correct or not.

It does not surprise or upset me that Lawro never expects Liverpool to lose. He is a passionate RedShite and that I understand. I also understand the attention-seeking, headline-grasping media-chasing down stories about Man Utd and not Macclesfield Town. It is a commercial perspective, and whether noble or not, you have to earn(or buy) your way in.

However, what I don't get, is why the BBC who have a world-wide, almost priceless reputation for honest, accurate, UNBIASED journalism, bought and paid for if you will by surviving on TV licence money and avoiding the advertising revenues enjoyed by their competitors.

So isn't it strange that the double bias displayed over the Merseyside clubs does exist? Why does it? What's the rationale and the context?

Why have all the reports I have read recently about the 'wonderful game' between Man City and Liverpool, been projected from a Liverpool being the superior team by "failing to beat City"?

Why on a Saturday devoid of the Big 6, was Everton v West Brom, billed as the best of the rest, last on MotD?

Paul's article, and many of the responses for me are a real conundrum which makes no sense at all. Steve Carse's (#113) comments are for me a real eye-opener of just how ingrained the bias really is. Ste Traverse's (#90) comments show how blinkered people can be if something socially unsettling is under discussion which they don't agree with (that's OK), or can't see (that's sad).

Is it possible that the BBC power brokers do have an agenda? I can't imagine why they would, but as an example,why sponsor the embarrassingly biased Lawro, and potentially undermine the reputation of your venerable institution's reputation in the process? Could the answer lie in the approach of the Romans? To keep the unruly masses out of trouble, keep them entertained? Even that doesn't make sense to focus so adoringly on one select club, who aren't actually the leaders of the pack anyway.

All I know is it sucks and/or stinks and I can't work out which or why.

Ray Robinson
125 Posted 22/03/2017 at 16:07:39
Peter, you make some really excellent points there that I can totally agree with. However, it does not explain why we are quite often totally ignored by the local BBC coverage. I see that as being a worse kind of discrimination than that which we suffer on a national level.

I have watched the reviews on the Monday evening local news and our game has been totally ignored sometimes. That's not paranoia – that's an inexcusable fact.

Dermot Byrne
126 Posted 22/03/2017 at 16:08:57
If a terrorist attack on parliament usurps any stadium story, I will be disgusted. Don't BBC know our history?! ;-)
Steve Jones
127 Posted 22/03/2017 at 16:34:09
Media outlets focus on events that attract volume consumption of their product.

The consumer base associated with Man Utd, LFC etc is always going to give them priority. That's simple market forces – supply and demand. It would take a bit of a victim complex to mark that down as a hit on Everton;specifically it's a hit on any club that doesn't have a huge global following.

In that vein I don't see much national coverage of Spurs, as a similarly 'followed' club, outside of their manager being lured off to the continent or discussions of them being a 'selling' club on the strength, solely, of Bale's departure. Little different to us. I'm sure we were first or second on MotD when we took Man City down a few weeks back as well.

Ray Roche
128 Posted 22/03/2017 at 21:46:42
William Cartwright (#124)

In the 1980s I was involved, in a very minor way, in a documentary about the service industry, the Gas Board, Manweb, Water Board and GPO (as was) Telephones and the service they provided. From my experience the " honest, accurate, UNBIASED journalism" that you mention is a myth.

The completed programme was a disgrace, with important interviews cut to suit the BBC's agenda or left out all together, the pertinent facts skewed and distorted to make sure that the BBC position was adhered to... in fact, the completed programme was a travesty of the truth and I have looked at the BBC with a jaundiced view from that day to this. Anyone who thinks that the BBC is above reproach and incapable of showing bias is living in a fool's paradise.

Robert Workman
129 Posted 23/03/2017 at 09:16:51
It is not just the BBC. ITV failed to mention Ross Barkley before, during or after the Germany v England game. There was lots of drooling over Alli and Lallana – who missed the chances that should have won the game!
Andrew Ellams
131 Posted 23/03/2017 at 10:26:43
It's not anti-Everton bias, it's all about selling the clubs that generate the cash in Japan, China etc. And you can't blame the BBC for Everton not being in that bracket.
Phil Martin
132 Posted 23/03/2017 at 10:32:05
Perhaps if we'd won more than one fucking trophy since 1987 (Charity Shields excluded), we'd have a bigger profile.

Don't blame the BBC, or the media. Blame those who've ran our club into mediocrity and irrelevance.

Alex Higgins
133 Posted 23/03/2017 at 10:58:53
I think the BBC reluctance to give us a fair whip of the media gravy train is a fear factor.

Let's face it, two of our major honors have been directly followed by a World War.... The next word war will turn us all to crisps.

Everton must be denied success. There is a secret paper on it.

David Graves
134 Posted 23/03/2017 at 11:03:31
Robert, you're continuing to feed into the conspiracy nonsense. Ross wasn't playing. The other two were!
Patrick Murphy
135 Posted 23/03/2017 at 11:24:07
Andrew (#131),

I agree with you it is about the cash generators from all areas of culture who tend to get the attention from the beeb, whether that be music, fashion, film, sport etc. However, my beef is that the BBC is a publicly funded organisation so why do they feel the need to promote artists, stars, designers, clubs in the first place – what's in it for them?

Old School tie brigade is what the BBC has always been just like the FA and others.

Andrew Ellams
136 Posted 23/03/2017 at 11:58:29
Patrick, it's not just the BBC – it's everybody who covers it's every media outlet that covers the major European domestic leagues, Champions league etc. In 15 months, we have a World Cup and you can bet we'll be led to believe that the whole thing revolves around half a dozen players.

To be honest, my guess is that these outlets are under pressure from Uefa, Fifa etc to promote their major brands worldwide and the day Rupert Murdoch got his grubby hands on football was a dark day indeed.

Ste Traverse
137 Posted 23/03/2017 at 13:40:23
We're further down the food chain simply because there's much higher profile clubs than us and we have won fuck-all for decades. It's as simple as that. Until we start winning trophies again it won't change.

When we were winning things in the 80s, what would we have said if the clubs in upper mid-table were getting the same coverage of us?

Football fans are generally hypocrites and paranoid. Everyone of them dishes out stick to players, clubs, fans and pundits they dislike but get outraged when they are on the receiving end – plus most of them believes the media is anti their club.

I find it pathetic.

Rick Tarleton
138 Posted 23/03/2017 at 14:12:41
The Sky generation only support one of the six. The BBC, desperate to keep its pathetically small Saturday audience and to keep them happy, follows the party line of that generation of supporters and gives them their teams first irrespective of the game's dynamics.

Ergo, Everton come on very late on unless they've had a game when one of the big six has beaten them comprehensively and we're watching Everton by chance and admiring the big six team. It's simple really.

William Cartwright
139 Posted 23/03/2017 at 15:24:53
Ray @ e : Interesting observations about the historical bias within the BBC and no, I am not surprised. It's easy to forget it is an institution which is possibly outdated and run by people of all persuasions.

Perhaps I am naive in looking for and expecting the neutrality that they use as a marketing ploy. But non the less it still pisses me off when the RedShites are literally adored to the point that is quite frankly embarrassing to witness.

I would love to know what the RedShites have done to get that support, but then again would I? It might be just as offensive if they were biased for Everton, balanced view and fair play all round etc.

The situation is not improving, I suspect, with Ross possibly wondering exactly what he is doing to his 'international career by staying at Everton, and would he be better off making a move? I really hope not... but, if he doesn't play against Lithuania, then it really does make you wonder exactly what he has to do to get recognition....?

John Gall
141 Posted 24/03/2017 at 17:19:54
That is a brilliant article. And it's not just the BBC, it's a general perception in football culture.

From 1970 onwards, the image and profile of Everton has been on a continual downward slide (excepting 84-87). I think it started when Liverpool became media darlings with the whole Shankly, Keegan, Toshack, Kop, Dalglish bollocks.

We just began to disappear from the public consciousness and it's never been corrected. With the formation of the Premier League (led, ironically, by our former chairman) and the shocking decline in the quality of the football served up by Everton teams our image and reputation have completely nosedived.

Steve Brown
142 Posted 25/03/2017 at 04:41:51
I think we should clear our heads of these thoughts, smile and head forward with confidence and a bit of swagger. I think it is just history and lazy journalism.

History because unfortunately Liverpool dominated from 1975 to 1985, Man Utd from the nineties with Chelsea and Arsenal breaking through also. So unsurprisingly the majority of pundits are from those clubs.

That being said, it is true that there are a lot of ex-reds on TV, looking at today's reality through the lens of yesterday's memories. That is the only reason only Liverpool are talked about as a 'big club' is because of the past.

Lazy journalism because it is easier to talk about predictabilities rather than uncertainties. The Sky six will win the league, sign the best players etc etc. You could tell that, though Leicester's triumph last season was talked up, that it made the media and the pundit brigade uneasy.

The only way to break free from this is to win trophies!

David Greenwood
143 Posted 25/03/2017 at 08:25:58
Summay of the BBC website last night.

Hartson - there is no malice, he's not that sort of player.

Headline - Coleman suffers apparent leg injury.

And my particular favourite, Coleman won't be available for Ireland for the foreseeable future.

Utterly shameful.


Anthony Jones
144 Posted 26/03/2017 at 11:40:53
Well said.

The BBC is a scam. We have to fund it no matter what propaganda they are spewing. Football propaganda, economic propaganda, political propaganda: Take your pick.

Colin Gee
145 Posted 26/03/2017 at 15:00:51
As others have said it's been going on for years, I remember the 'Team of no Stars' winning the League. I remember when Ian Rush played his last game for the RS that was the main story on the Sports News – not Everton winning the League.

As for Rom being our 'Leading Goalscorer' in the Premier League with 63 now, well done lad, but a certain WR Dean scored 60 in one season with a proper casey! Now that's a proper centre-forward 'goalscoring machine' I have never heard Dixie's 60 in one season mentioned anywhere in the media recently.

Winston Williamson
146 Posted 26/03/2017 at 15:57:18
Most pundits struggle to put a sentence together, falling back on tried and tested football cliches.

You could see they were stumped as to Leicester's success last season, usually falling back on why the usual suspects were underperforming to let a side like Leicester in...

There are some who are quite articulate (to a certain extent). Pundits like Kevin Kilbane don't let their former loyalties or clubs cloud their judgement, whereas, ex-reds seem to glorify in boosting the darkside's (evil) profile and putting down their rivals.

Lawro (twat) and Thompson (twatter) are parodies now of just bad-mouthing EFC.

Mike Gaynes
147 Posted 26/03/2017 at 16:23:44
Colin Gee, maybe because it happened in 1928. I'd say that after 89 years, it's no longer headline news in the media.

I'm a baseball fan here in the US, and I don't recall any recent pundit comments on Babe Ruth, but it doesn't mean he's been forgotten.

Jon Withey
148 Posted 26/03/2017 at 23:39:32
The bias just comes from the disproportionate number of reds at the BBC. It's been institutional for 20 years.

I always like the fact that Ferguson wouldn't talk to them – probably for the same reason.

Jon Withey
149 Posted 26/03/2017 at 23:40:41
Alex Ferguson, that is!
Gareth Jones
150 Posted 27/03/2017 at 14:18:11
I take it everyone is aware that Gavin Patterson – the CEO of BT and the guy responsible for taking the 'big balls' gamble for BT to become a sports broadcaster and challenge Sky – is also an avid RedShite supporter... just saying!
Paul Smith
151 Posted 28/03/2017 at 12:49:09
Paul this is absolutely spot on Excellent. Every Evertonian who reads this should share it with every blue or unbiased football fan they know.

A lot of other clubs could use this thread too with their own team name. It's not that we feel left out – it's blatant favouritism.

Matthew Williams
152 Posted 28/03/2017 at 18:21:07
We're simply way too nice of a club, we should wait til an important game is looming & simply not show up! Take it right up till the 11nth hour too, fuck 'em, take the financial hit & move on.

State our grievances to all & sundry why, if nowt changes... Do it again!

A Cup Final would be the best time, the world watches... and no Blues... We're Everton, this shit has to end & were the ONLY club who should lead again. If not, nothing will ever change.

David Greenwood
153 Posted 29/03/2017 at 07:53:17
The BBC news this morning has headline sports news (as it has since yesterday) that Lallana is injured and is out of the Merseyside derby.

Not a mention of the injury to Funes Mori.

Matthew Williams
154 Posted 29/03/2017 at 15:20:57
David (#153)... and on it goes... sigh.

Okay, Blues... let's rise above... onwards to Mordor!

Alexander Murphy
155 Posted 29/03/2017 at 16:10:22
To those talking in terms of "paranoia", "conspiracy theories" "chip on the shoulder" and "bitter blues".... Wake up. This is your fellow Blues pointing a finger at institutional ignorance, favouritism and shoddy journalism. It IS.

What is worse is that you apologists clutching your cap to your chests, whilst keeping your eyes firmly focussed upon the toes of your boots and tugging your forelocks; you want True Blues to pipe down!

Here's a simple test of whether what someone is saying about Everton is helpful or harmful. If Billy Dean, Alan Ball and Kevin Ratcliffe were hearing or reading what you had to convey, would you get three nods?

If not, then spare everyone the convoluted crap. What you permit, you promote; what you defend, you own.

Tony Draper
156 Posted 30/03/2017 at 02:48:58
Flippin 'eck, Alex, don't hold back, mate. I can't really disagree.

And you have made me think. Here's exactly what came to mind.

Link

James Lauwervine
157 Posted 30/03/2017 at 09:44:05
Anyone who thinks the BBC aren't biased, just check the Merseyside derby quiz on the BBC website today. No doubt at all it is compiled by an RS.
Rob Halligan
158 Posted 30/03/2017 at 18:25:43
The BBC MotD Premier League Show on BBC 2 tonight is previewing the game on Saturday.

There is a panel of 4, with a ratio of 3 : 1 in favour of... US!! Peter Reid, Tony Bellew, David Prentice and Mark Lawrenson.

Maybe the BBC aren't as biased as we think, or someone from there has been reading TW.

Robert Pedder
159 Posted 01/04/2017 at 08:16:54
Radio 4's Today Programme has an interview with a former player talking about the derby. Of course you can guess which side he played for.

Rumours that Gabby Logan will be using a Ouija board to contact Clive Thomas during Football Focus are, as yet, unconfirmed.

Rob Young
160 Posted 04/04/2017 at 19:27:25
On tonight's live coverage on the BBC website they have given line-ups for 7 if the 8 teams who are to kick off in 30 mins.

Guess whose line-up they haven't given?

Martin Nicholls
161 Posted 05/04/2017 at 10:38:26
Anyone read the BBC report on the game? Concentrated almost entirely on Man Utd whilst not even acknowledging that, had whistle gone 20 seconds earlier, we would be above them now. They are as biased as last night's ref was for virtually the entire game.
Michael Kenrick
162 Posted 05/04/2017 at 16:45:34
Sorry, Martin, but this is false thinking in the extreme:

"Concentrated almost entirely on Man Utd whilst not even acknowledging that, had whistle gone 20 seconds earlier, we would be above them now. "

That's simply not how football works. You play to the final whistle. The result is determined then and only then. There is no parallel universe were another result is even possible.

You (and others) making this bizarre claim for leniency and understanding towards what were dreadful decisions by Koeman and a disgusting display by Lukaku which lost us the victory and two vital points because "we nearly won", is the kind of muddled thinking that continues to perpetuate the mediocrity of "plucky little Everton".

Shane Corcoran
163 Posted 05/04/2017 at 16:50:37
I can see this thread running for 20 years and a parody of it being created elsewhere.

That's not to say that the thread isn't accurate. It is, of course.

Nick Millington
164 Posted 06/04/2017 at 00:20:43
BBC didn't even give us a mention on last night's game at Man Utd, all the comments were about Man Utd. No mention of how well we played or managed to hold on till the last kick.

That's it, I'm done with Match of the Day now.

Colin Glassar
165 Posted 07/04/2017 at 08:15:51
Danny Murphy- Lukaku would be a perfect fit for Chelsea.

Everton 0 Leicester 2 - Lawro

BBC today.

It's a constant drip, drip, drip about how we should conform to being plucky little Everton.

Trevor Peers
166 Posted 07/04/2017 at 09:09:50
Murphy is talking through his BBC arse, his disrespect of Everton is loathsome, there's no guarantee Chelsea will pay the huge fee required to secure the lump. Even if they did I think he will turn out to be a worse buy for them than Torres, who was a much better all round player than Lukaku.

I hope they do pay the 㿼 million and end the saga, because he will still be moaning this time next season if he stays. The money could transform our chances of finishing in the top four.

Dave Abrahams
168 Posted 07/04/2017 at 09:27:42
Trevor (166) don't talk like that !!!!!!, I think Lukaku is the best thing since sliced bread, he will be a sensation for Chelsea, they will win everything going with Rom.

If Chelsea are going to pay£80 million for him I'd give them a five percent discount and lock the door until Lukaku signs the contract.

As long as the money is going to be spent on new players.

Martin Nicholls
169 Posted 07/04/2017 at 09:32:14
Michael (#162) – you miss my point entirely, which was about BBC coverage and not our substitutions etc. I made no "bizarre claim for leniency" or "understanding of dreadful decisions etc" and so with respect suggest it is you who must have visited some parallel universe in order to find any such claims.

ps: For the record, BBC NW on the morning of the game only talked of "a victory for Man Utd closing the gap on the top four" but made no reference whatsoever to what such a victory would do for us, ie, take us above our opponents. That, at the very least, is unbalanced coverage.

Steve Carse
171 Posted 07/04/2017 at 19:10:31
David (153), there was a worse piece on the day of the match. The brief piece from the morning news sports reporter went something like "No manager wants to go into a big game with a weakened squad, but that will be the case for Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp who will be without Henderson and Lallana for the Merseyside derby today". No reference was subsequently made to Everton's plight.

One can only assume that the scripts for these sort of items are written by Red loving junior scribes.

Dermot Byrne
173 Posted 07/04/2017 at 19:34:44
"...or managed to hold on till the last kick."

Not just the BBC who see us as "plucky little Everton"

For god's sake. Every team outside the recent winners and those fighting for relegation feel the same.

Wise up. They make a programme that they sell worldwide​ and pander to those who buy it.

It is a reflection of modern football and the PL. It is mirrored by how many on here get into debates about business and the Lukaku price.

If we play in a world of only-the-winners-matter, don't expect the losers to make headlines. Wonder if and when we do start winning we will moan that the mid table team who drew at our new palace did not get their proper air time.

This thread is like asking the banking industry to give refunds.

Colin Glassar
174 Posted 07/04/2017 at 19:41:17
Conte doesn't want Rom, he wants Higuain and/or Sanchez. If Emanolo(?) gets his way, and buys Rom, he will be a bench warmer. PSG is his only viable option.
Dermot Byrne
175 Posted 07/04/2017 at 19:50:57
Not one mention of Everton, Colin!
Colin Glassar
176 Posted 07/04/2017 at 19:58:55
Our Bobby brown shoes reckons Rom is worth £90m now Dermot. According to the geniuses on the BBC, Chelsea will get him for about £40m!
Paul Smith
177 Posted 07/04/2017 at 20:11:11
Just seen the front cover of the racing post. Unable to hyperlink so for peak fuckedoffness I recommend folks Google it. Splattered with RS & the Fab 4 all over it not a bit of blue in sight. Bitter? Oh yes!
Brent Stephens
178 Posted 07/04/2017 at 20:26:36
Colin, if the criticism of Rom on TW is anything to go by, he's not even worth £40m.
Colin Glassar
179 Posted 07/04/2017 at 21:26:16
£40 more like it, Brent.
Brian Denton
180 Posted 07/04/2017 at 21:35:38
Just to cheer people up, from today's Guardian:

"Everton defended and broke superbly against Manchester United on Tuesday night but, though Ashley Williams's rash handball attracted most of the attention, the game ought to have been over by then."

The piece then goes on to write some interesting home truths about Lukaku.

Colin Glassar
181 Posted 08/04/2017 at 12:30:19
Turned Gillette Soccer Saturday off as the "panel of experts" have Chelsea beating us as a given (even though we weren't mentioned by name) . It's not just a BBC thing, they all do it.
Colin Glassar
182 Posted 08/04/2017 at 13:28:19
Sky still analysing the bloody derby tackles!! Pathetic.
Colin Glassar
183 Posted 10/04/2017 at 12:34:05
Why is Danny Murphy's ridiculous Lukaku piece still being given prominence on the BBC football page a week after it was "written"?

Now it's all about Ross being, allegedly, punched in the gob by some yob. Nothing ever positive about us.

When I used to live in S. America I watched Premier League games on Fox Sports in Espanol and the commentators used to give certain players nicknames. Murphy was "el enano venenoso" – The Poisoned Dwarf! Says it all really.

Martin Nicholls
184 Posted 12/04/2017 at 10:46:56
Heard on local radio yesterday that "Liverpool's Ben Woodburn has been nominated for European Golen Boy award". I read this morning that Everton's Tom Davies has also been nominated. Which local radio station focussed on Woodburn's inclusion but failed to mention Davies? Why, BBC Radio Merseyside of course!

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


© ToffeeWeb