Ludo*1

With the news that Clive Tyldesley is to be 'demoted' by ITV in favour of the less condescending, but much more boring Sam Matterface I felt P&B needed a thread to discuss pundits/commentators. For me, the crop of pundits that seem to be getting cultivated at the BBC are absolutely chronic with the likes of Martin Keown, Danny Murphy & Gary Lineker's supposed future replacement Jermaine Jenas. Ally McCoist is a very dull pundit, but the best co-commentator going at the moment with Jon Champion making an absolute champion of a pairing. Best of all time goes to Peter Brackley whom until today I was still hoping he'd make a return, but having googled him, it seems he died in 2018! Ideal set-up: Jim Rosenthal as main presenter. Jon Champion & Ally McCoist on commentary. Gary Neville, Roy Keane & if I must pick a 3rd (Didn't realise it was such slim pickings) possible Souness? As far as Scottish presenters are concerned, we should be tempting Dougie Donnelly back! Anyway, this is the thread to give praise or voice your annoyance at anything a pundit has said/say who you like and don't like.

I didn't think it'd be possible to downgrade on Tyldesley but kudos to ITV.

George Galloway stole his hat.

Is Winalot not Asda's cheapo shit as it is? What do you feed it normally?

By my understanding, we have the 'disease' clause that's mentioned.

Pages 1-11 & 86 are decent wee summaries! The insurers’ Defences have a common theme on causation – namely that the proximate cause or “but for” cause on a counterfactual, was not the “insured peril” (as they define their respective “insured peril”) but something else and that something else is the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19 and the impact of it and/or of the government response to it.191 For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action. For those with “disease” clauses, it is the outbreak of the disease other than within the Relevant Policy Area or in the vicinity or locality in which the premises are located. For those with public authority/prevention of access clauses it is the impact the outbreak of COVID-19 had or would have had even without Government action. 215.The FCA’s case as to the correct approach to causation is set out in this section but the principal errors in the Defendants’ approach can be summarised as follows: 215.1.They overlook the need to have regard to the contractual context in which the causation tests are to be applied or to apply the causation tests in a sensible and realistic way. This is legally flawed. 215.2.For those with disease clauses: (a)They artificially proceed on the premise that the outbreak in the relevant locality has to be a self-contained cause, as if the policy responds to outbreaks which are only in the locality (i.e. as if the effect of the causation test is to create an exclusion which is not explicit in the policy in circumstances where losses are caused by a disease outbreak which occurs both within and without the locality). This disregards the fact that such a clause (e.g. one with a 25 mile radius covering almost 2000 square miles) must have contemplated a situation in which, potentially at the very least, there was an outbreak within a 25 mile radius because it forms part of a larger outbreak either regionally or nationally. B)They fail to apply the correct causation analysis, in that they fail to recognise that the presence of COVID-19 in each locality is an integral part of one single broad and/or indivisible cause, being the COVID-19 pandemic, or alternatively that the outbreak in each locality made its own concurrent causative contribution to the overall picture of a pandemic, which prompted the Government response

The arguments put forward to not pay out the insurance: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/corporate/bi-insurance-test-case-fca-skeleton-argument.pdf

I went to view his Twitter, but it appears I've been blocked. I don't think I've ever mentioned him on Twitter. Quite strange. He's been against aligning with Tories his whole life (Pictorial evidence suggests he loves the Farage) yet he's asking them to join forces with him? I'm sure he'll be successful in this. Literally the only thing he has going for him is his debating skill level. He could argue that the sky is green and be able to make a lot of current MPs and MSPs on the SNP side look very silly. Thankfully, he's an absolute joke figure and the damage he does will just ultimately be more to his own image. This is very similar to the time Jim Murphy decided to get on his soap box and debate around the country but with a more skilled orator with a much worse reputation.

Financial fair play can get put in the bin then.

Very minor and very petty, but Spiers' article on United's new manager has the word 'alot' written a lot of times. If it was on P&B it wouldn't annoy me (I certainly make grammatical mistakes that can't simply be put down as a typo)but for a tenured journalist to be making such simple mistakes and them not being checked when he writes for what is supposedly one of the premium newspapers in the UK gets right on my tits. Whilst I'm on my rant - Kheredine for the BBC is one of the poorest writers around. His work is littered with grammatical errors that'd make a school pupil blush.

Sheep get a go on you as well?

Traitorous b*****ds, the pair of ya.

He brought more to the team than just those goals and if he had half decent service he'd have scored a good few more IMO. I can't see us agreeing!

Aye there is.

I don't think we do. We tried 2 up top under McPake and he couldn't get it working hence how Hemmings had to be deployed as the solo figure up top.

You chose to glory hunt.

I'd say that was more due to style of play opposed to his finishing ability.

Danny Mullen would be the likely target you'd imagine.

Hemmings isn't replaceable. He wasn't replaceable when we lost him when we were a top 6 side in the top flight and we won't be able to replace him if he goes this time either. Just hope someone can slot in and make it mean that it's not the absolute disaster that it was last time round.

Why Rangers?

'My dad supported them' is the go to tactic when questioned as if that absolves them from their cuntishness. Just means there's a long line of c***s.

Kheredine saying, 'The cuts Dundee are asking for are between 15 and 25% depending on the level of salary.'