Jeff Stelling to leave Sky Sports' Soccer Saturday

[theonlywayisup]

But this time it is true :boo hoo::boo hoo::boo hoo:

Jeff Stelling: Broadcaster to leave Sky Sports and Soccer Saturday show at end of season - BBC Sport (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65437419)

He'll be sadly missed. I can't wait to see the montage of his best clips.

[Jones28]

One of footballs good guys 👍🏻

His knowledge of the game and the goings on is unsurpassed.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Big shoes for someone to fill. Simple format that works so well ,but he pulls it all together.

[04Sauzee]

Haven't been a fan of the Sky Sports Saturday show for a while now and think he's doing the right thing standing down. I much prefer the coverage on BT sport's which is finishing at the end of the season.

[Hiber-nation]

Read his book a few years ago and he came across as an arrogant tw@t. Done a brilliant job though.

[Carheenlea]

While I’ve seen the odd clip of highlights of Jeff Stelling on social media, I’ve never actually seen Soccer Saturday in all the years it’s been on.

These things never go on forever, or we’d still have Archie McPherson presenting Sportscene. I wouldn’t be averse to that mind you!

[brog]

Read his book a few years ago and he came across as an arrogant tw@t. Done a brilliant job though.

I can assure you he's anything but arrogant. He's just a normal guy who loves his football and is a genuine fan of Hartlepool. TBH he's pretty much exactly as you see him on TV but of course much quieter.

[Donegal Hibby]

He's just brilliant at his job and Skysports won't find anyone as good .
https://youtu.be/HKyVNPFOF8c

[Hibbyradge]

He's just brilliant at his job and Skysports won't find anyone as good .
https://youtu.be/HKyVNPFOF8c

Watch out, the anti-pun, fun drains will be out to get you!

[Hiber-nation]

I can assure you he's anything but arrogant. He's just a normal guy who loves his football and is a genuine fan of Hartlepool. TBH he's pretty much exactly as you see him on TV but of course much quieter.

Must have been the ghost writer then. He sounded so full of himself.

[brog]

Must have been the ghost writer then. He sounded so full of himself.

You know I've never asked him if it was ghosted or self written. Actually I last saw him in January and he was telling me some great old stories. I said he should write a book and he laughed and said he had written 4 or 5 I think. He spent the rest of the night muttering, some mate you but laughing. He is 100% not arrogant but quite possibly as you say ghost written.

[blackpoolhibs]

Never met him, but he's brilliant at what he does on sky.

[brog]

Never met him, but he's brilliant at what he does on sky.

Agreed! About 3 years ago Tranent made it into SC so their score was coming up on Sky SS. Jeff for once mispronounced the name putting the emphasis on Tra rather than Nent. I texted him at HT when they were on an advert break to tell him because he's a perfectionist. When he came back he said, ' well we've been deluged with calls from Tranent about my awful pronounciation' while grinning broadly. A perfect example of turning an error into something positive.

[Dmas]

Haven't been a fan of the Sky Sports Saturday show for a while now and think he's doing the right thing standing down. I much prefer the coverage on BT sport's which is finishing at the end of the season.

I’ve just started getting into that show on bt is this the final season of that?

[overdrive]

I’ve just started getting into that show on bt is this the final season of that?

Yep it was announced a few weeks ago. I prefer it to Soccer Saturday now as well. I think BT Sport is rebranding at the end of the season so it ending might have something to do with that.

On the topic of folk leaving Sky, I see yesterday was Graeme Souness’ last game as a Sky pundit.

[jacomo]

One of footballs good guys 👍🏻

His knowledge of the game and the goings on is unsurpassed.


Yeah… pushing the betting and getting folk into financial hardship. What a man.

[Jones28]

Yeah… pushing the betting and getting folk into financial hardship. What a man.

Yes. Famous for inventing gambling right enough.

[jacomo]

Yes. Famous for inventing gambling right enough.


Having trouble reading today?

[Gus]

Yeah… pushing the betting and getting folk into financial hardship. What a man.

How’s he pushed? Paid to do a job, similar to multiple other people advertising betting companies and alcohol.

Both addictions are horrible but questioning someone who i could guess you’ve never met because of their job…..

[jacomo]

How’s he pushed? Paid to do a job, similar to multiple other people advertising betting companies and alcohol.

Both addictions are horrible but questioning someone who i could guess you’ve never met because of their job…..


He’s the face of sky bet. He’s done their ads for ages, of course he’s pushing it.

People bet, I get it. I have a flutter sometimes myself. But the online gambling industry has dragged hundreds of thousands into misery and ruin and don’t give a s*** about it.

If you’re cool with that, cool. But I dislike already wealthy people who then take even more money from a product that deliberately targets and harms vulnerable people.

He’s a good presenter. But I’ll skip the love in.

[Jones28]

Having trouble reading today?

Lighten up FFS.

He does the adverts, maybe its a contractual obligation?

[Hibs4185]

It will be a woman replacement guaranteed! Nothing against woman, Alex Scott is great.

Just seems every game now has a woman commentator and pundits.

[Smartie]

Lighten up FFS.

He does the adverts, maybe its a contractual obligation?

He could say no, have a different and less lucrative contract if he had a problem with it.

Gambling’s a pretty emotive subject - innocent for most but hellish for some.

I can understand why some folk might have strong feelings about it.

[Hibbyradge]

He could say no, have a different and less lucrative contract if he had a problem with it.

Gambling’s a pretty emotive subject - innocent for most but hellish for some.

I can understand why some folk might have strong feelings about it.

I can understand why people have strong feelings about it, but to criticise someone for earning money from advertising Sky betting while admitting that they bet themselves is a strange position to take, imo.

Millions of people have alcohol dependency issues and thousands die as a direct result of drinking excessively. However, although alcohol adverts can't be shown on TV before watershed, it features in almost every single programme be it drama, soaps or comedies. That's far more likely to encourage people to drink than Peter Kay thumping a ball over a fence shouting "'ave it".

Having said that, I've never heard anyone criticise Peter Kay or any other celebrity for advertising alcohol.

Off the top of my head, people like Micah Richards, Peter Crouch, Roy Keane, Jose Mourhinho and even Christiano Ronaldo have been paid to advertise betting.

I started this post earlier but was called away and I'm not quite sure where I was going with it. :hilarious

I'll leave it here as an example of an incoherent ramble. :greengrin

[Jones28]

He could say no, have a different and less lucrative contract if he had a problem with it.

Gambling’s a pretty emotive subject - innocent for most but hellish for some.

I can understand why some folk might have strong feelings about it.

I can understand the strong feelings, I don't gamble and have never enjoyed it when I did, I don't understand the feelings of people who love a bet, but thats up to them. Addiction is hellish.

I still don't see what harm someone fronting an advertising campaign does to the masses. It's like lambasting someone who appears in an advert warning against getting your drink spiked.

The companies themselves, the advertising watchdog allowing them on TV, the TV companies themselves for offering them airtime. Football embraced gambling. I can't stand watching it on TV because of the volume of gambling adverts.

Geoff Stelling is about 10,000th on the list of problems with football and gambling.

[Scouse Hibee]

He’s the face of sky bet. He’s done their ads for ages, of course he’s pushing it.

People bet, I get it. I have a flutter sometimes myself. But the online gambling industry has dragged hundreds of thousands into misery and ruin and don’t give a s*** about it.

If you’re cool with that, cool. But I dislike already wealthy people who then take even more money from a product that deliberately targets and harms vulnerable people.

He’s a good presenter. But I’ll skip the love in.

You bet, you get it, but you criticise someone for advertising gambling? That seem a strange stance to take.

[jacomo]

You bet, you get it, but you criticise someone for advertising gambling? That seem a strange stance to take.


It’s not strange if you read what I wrote.

I remember when bookies had to have opaque windows and advertising was banned. I believe in freedom of choice so I wouldn’t support banning gambling but I would prefer a return to similar restrictions.

This isn’t the same gambling industry as 20 years ago.

There are estimated to be at least 500,000 problem gamblers in the UK. Meanwhile Denise Coates pays herself £300m in a single year.

It’s disgusting.

[Jones28]

It’s not strange if you read what I wrote.

I remember when bookies had to have opaque windows and advertising was banned. I believe in freedom of choice so I wouldn’t support banning gambling but I would prefer a return to similar restrictions.

This isn’t the same gambling industry as 20 years ago.

There are estimated to be at least 500,000 problem gamblers in the UK. Meanwhile Denise Coates pays herself £300m in a single year.

It’s disgusting.

And yet you partake in it?

[Irish_Steve]

And yet you partake in it?

It’s OK, he doesn’t use Sky Bet, that would be contrary to his argument…..

[brog]

I can understand why people have strong feelings about it, but to criticise someone for earning money from advertising Sky betting while admitting that they bet themselves is a strange position to take, imo.

Millions of people have alcohol dependency issues and thousands die as a direct result of drinking excessively. However, although alcohol adverts can't be shown on TV before watershed, it features in almost every single programme be it drama, soaps or comedies. That's far more likely to encourage people to drink than Peter Kay thumping a ball over a fence shouting "'ave it".

Having said that, I've never heard anyone criticise Peter Kay or any other celebrity for advertising alcohol.

Off the top of my head, people like Micah Richards, Peter Crouch, Roy Keane, Jose Mourhinho and even Christiano Ronaldo have been paid to advertise betting.

I started this post earlier but was called away and I'm not quite sure where I was going with it. :hilarious

I'll leave it here as an example of an incoherent ramble. :greengrin


Good post D. Thank goodness our beloved team have never stooped to being sponsored by a betting or alcohol company!

[Hibbyradge]

Good post D. Thank goodness our beloved team have never stooped to being sponsored by a betting or alcohol company!

Indeed.

Marathons are chocolate bars.

Crabbies are fishies with shells.

[AliboyFC]

Well atleast he will get replaced by another box ticker that may or may not know about sport.

[Callum_62]

Well atleast he will get replaced by another box ticker that may or may not know about sport.What do you mean by that?

Do you think sky will employ someone to host soccer Saturday (If it continues) who doesn't know about football?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

[Gus]

What do you mean by that?

Do you think sky will employ someone to host soccer Saturday (If it continues) who doesn't know about football?

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

If it continues, please please let it continue. Julian can do it

[offshorehibby]

I always thought Dan Walker who done Football Focus would be a good fit to replace Stelling

[jacomo]

And yet you partake in it?


I also drink, but I support restrictions on alcohol marketing.

Funnily enough, most issues in reality aren’t black or white, despite the raging arguments you see on the socials.

[jacomo]

Good post D. Thank goodness our beloved team have never stooped to being sponsored by a betting or alcohol company!


My personal preference would be that we don’t.

Jeff Stelling is hardly the only famous face to make money from shilling harmful products to the masses. This is capitalism.

I’m still entitled to take a view on it, and that view is pretty consistent.

[jacomo]

Lighten up FFS.

He does the adverts, maybe its a contractual obligation?


You stop writing dumb comments, I’ll lighten up :aok:

I’m just sharing my opinion. You don’t have to agree with me, but don’t be a prick about it.

[Pretty Boy]

I also drink, but I support restrictions on alcohol marketing.

Funnily enough, most issues in reality aren’t black or white, despite the raging arguments you see on the socials.

I get what you are saying and it's a fair point.

I like a bet but I can see that our whole relationship with gambling is problematic and becoming increasingly so. The excessive and brash advertising plays a part in that as does the aggressive marketing to lure problem gamblers back to the table so to speak. There's a lot of noise about the intrusive nature of the new guidelines for bookmakers but frankly they only have themselves to blame. They have repeatedly tried, often successfully, to circumvent existing legislation and shown no attempt to self police.

I've made the point on this subject before but the disparity in regulation around advertising between something like alcohol and gambling is stark. Alcohol advertisements can't show alcohol raises someone's mood, they can show alcohol in an enjoyable setting but the narrative of the advert can't show someone looking a bit down in the dumps, having a couple of drinks then suddenly smiling and being the life and soul. Equally alcohol can be shown as part of a social event in an advert but it can't be shown to enhance it any way. So you can't have a party that is a bit crap, someone opens a bottle of Smirnoff and suddenly it's the best party in the world. Same applies with cars; adverts can't show or even imply that speed is a key selling point of the vehicle. They can show that it's a comfortable and enjoyable driving experience but can't in any way reference that any enjoyment comes from any high performance engine that allows for quick acceleration and excessive top speeds. On the flip side SkyBet tell us that 'it matters more when there is money on it'. That's about as clear an implication as you can get that a sporting event is actively enhanced by gambling. There are plenty other bookies who's adverts show people's enjoyment being enhanced by having a flutter. Then of course you have the parade of celebrities who appear throughout the build up to and during a foot ball match to tell you about the bet you simply have to have. Latest figures show that in a televised football match gambling logos will appear an average of 700 times. That's not a typo, it really is 700 times. It's ok though because they put 'when the fun stops, stop' in tiny letters at the bottom of the screen.

Further to that if you try to take a break from the bookies watch how quickly your inbox fills up with free bets, matched offers etc etc. If you are on file as a frequent loser of course. If you win then it will be an email telling you they are restricting your account because bookies only want the losers on the books regardless of their fluff about social responsibility. Someone who may be at the beginning of a realisation they have a problem with gambling but hasn't yet taken the plunge and fully self excluded will suddenly be bombarded with temptations. Would it be acceptable for a local pub to send someone who they had reason to suspect was alcohol dependent a voucher for a free pint? Or Philip Morris to send someone who was giving up smoking a free 20 pack? If someone's gut reaction is that those latter 2 examples are ridiculous then why is it not equally ridiculous that a bookie sends a proven loser a free bet voucher when they go to ground for a few days?

Just because I like a bet doesn't mean I'm blind to the flaws of the industry and don't have a fundamental problem with huge parts of it. Why should it? If someone enjoys a drink does that mean they can't support restricted licensing hours, minimum pricing or restrictions on marketing? If someone is a smoker did that mean they had to oppose the ban on selling branded sweetie fags to kids? It's a nonsensical argument that just because you enjoy something means you can't also support tougher regulations and reduced advertising of it.

[Hibbyradge]

I’m still entitled to take a view on it, and that view is pretty consistent.

Of course you are and I'd defend your right to do so.

However, if you re-read your first two posts, not only were they critical of the gambling companies and JS, they implied criticism of people who like the man. Some folk who like a bet, may also have become defensive after your comments.

The "I'll skip the live in" remark is particularly sneering and superior, so while I understand your position, and agree with your right to hold it, I can also see why you're receiving some robust opposition.

[Jones28]

You stop writing dumb comments, I’ll lighten up :aok:

I’m just sharing my opinion. You don’t have to agree with me, but don’t be a prick about it.

And I'm being a prick? :rolleyes:

[Jones28]

I also drink, but I support restrictions on alcohol marketing.

Funnily enough, most issues in reality aren’t black or white, despite the raging arguments you see on the socials.

I don't think anyone is suggesting it is black and white. I just thought someone who feels strongly about a "love in" with somebody who has been the face of football results show for decades and has also fronted a gambling advertising campaign would be against gambling entirely.

Gambling advertising should be restricted in the way that tobacco and alcohol is.

I'll miss Stelling.

That'll do.

[Gloucester Hibs]

I get what you are saying and it's a fair point.

I like a bet but I can see that our whole relationship with gambling is problematic and becoming increasingly so. The excessive and brash advertising plays a part in that as does the aggressive marketing to lure problem gamblers back to the table so to speak. There's a lot of noise about the intrusive nature of the new guidelines for bookmakers but frankly they only have themselves to blame. They have repeatedly tried, often successfully, to circumvent existing legislation and shown no attempt to self police.

I've made the point on this subject before but the disparity in regulation around advertising between something like alcohol and gambling is stark. Alcohol advertisements can't show alcohol raises someone's mood, they can show alcohol in an enjoyable setting but the narrative of the advert can't show someone looking a bit down in the dumps, having a couple of drinks then suddenly smiling and being the life and soul. Equally alcohol can be shown as part of a social event in an advert but it can't be shown to enhance it any way. So you can't have a party that is a bit crap, someone opens a bottle of Smirnoff and suddenly it's the best party in the world. Same applies with cars; adverts can't show or even imply that speed is a key selling point of the vehicle. They can show that it's a comfortable and enjoyable driving experience but can't in any way reference that any enjoyment comes from any high performance engine that allows for quick acceleration and excessive top speeds. On the flip side SkyBet tell us that 'it matters more when there is money on it'. That's about as clear an implication as you can get that a sporting event is actively enhanced by gambling. There are plenty other bookies who's adverts show people's enjoyment being enhanced by having a flutter. Then of course you have the parade of celebrities who appear throughout the build up to and during a foot ball match to tell you about the bet you simply have to have. Latest figures show that in a televised football match gambling logos will appear an average of 700 times. That's not a typo, it really is 700 times. It's ok though because they put 'when the fun stops, stop' in tiny letters at the bottom of the screen.

Further to that if you try to take a break from the bookies watch how quickly your inbox fills up with free bets, matched offers etc etc. If you are on file as a frequent loser of course. If you win then it will be an email telling you they are restricting your account because bookies only want the losers on the books regardless of their fluff about social responsibility. Someone who may be at the beginning of a realisation they have a problem with gambling but hasn't yet taken the plunge and fully self excluded will suddenly be bombarded with temptations. Would it be acceptable for a local pub to send someone who they had reason to suspect was alcohol dependent a voucher for a free pint? Or Philip Morris to send someone who was giving up smoking a free 20 pack? If someone's gut reaction is that those latter 2 examples are ridiculous then why is it not equally ridiculous that a bookie sends a proven loser a free bet voucher when they go to ground for a few days?

Just because I like a bet doesn't mean I'm blind to the flaws of the industry and don't have a fundamental problem with huge parts of it. Why should it? If someone enjoys a drink does that mean they can't support restricted licensing hours, minimum pricing or restrictions on marketing? If someone is a smoker did that mean they had to oppose the ban on selling branded sweetie fags to kids? It's a nonsensical argument that just because you enjoy something means you can't also support tougher regulations and reduced advertising of it.

Who can forget those "The Ladbrokes Life" adverts!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS8qXRXIFH0

[1875Sean]

Always liked Jeff but the show has went downhill when they started to get the likes of Kris Boyd and Clinton Morrison as regulars

[blackpoolhibs]

Always liked Jeff but the show has went downhill when they started to get the likes of Kris Boyd and Clinton Morrison as regulars

Yip, both can barely speak English.

[jacomo]

Of course you are and I'd defend your right to do so.

However, if you re-read your first two posts, not only were they critical of the gambling companies and JS, they implied criticism of people who like the man. Some folk who like a bet, may also have become defensive after your comments.

The "I'll skip the live in" remark is particularly sneering and superior, so while I understand your position, and agree with your right to hold it, I can also see why you're receiving some robust opposition.


:aok:

I’ll take the robust opposition. I’ll argue my case but plenty will disagree.

‘I’ll skip the love in’ is a fairly common shorthand on here. No intention to suggest any superiority by it.

[Joe6-2]

Always liked Jeff but the show has went downhill when they started to get the likes of Kris Boyd and Clinton Morrison as regulars

This, totally ruined when Charlie, Phil etc were sacked, saving money and bringing in less talented replacements.
Boyd :confused:

[HibbyAndy]

Always liked Jeff but the show has went downhill when they started to get the likes of Kris Boyd and Clinton Morrison as regulars

:agree:


Especially Morrison , He thinks the whole programme is about him and lets nobody else talk


Rapidly downhill imo

[Cod Boy]

I preferred the old days queuing up outside the newsagents on a Saturday night to find out all the scores in the pink news.