As it's on this thread, I'm guessing the relevance is that it means she's not earning a lot from it, so she's not in a position to buy the club.
I have not watched Alex Scott enough as a pundit to form an opinion as to how good or bad she is. But I do find this whole equality of outcome (as in a female pundit(s) per match) which we have seen shoved down our throats nauseating! I'm all for anyone being involved, just needs to be on merit...like knowing what they are talking about.
How many women have you had on your screen that don't know what they're talking about, and how many men who don't know what they're talking about? Is one worse than the other?
... or listen to those irritating nauseating scousers that seem to be co-commentating all the time nowadays
Not really, I was talking about putting women in the roles for the sake of it...you was asking something completely different. Probably to start your standard daily WUM exchange with whoever will bite.
Even the worst of the male pundits know more about male football than supposedly major female ones in general. There are exceptions of course. I think having a pleasing voice and pronouncing things properly is a requirement. Something Alex Scott doesn't manage. As don't a number of male ex footballers. England Aluko is far better in my opinion. But the BBC seems to decide someone is a national treasure to be thrust forward at every opportunity. They did that with Sue Perkins despite all evidence to the contrary.
@Sir Cheshire Ben and @Barchullona I can't be the only one bored of this spat you're having. The next one of you that replies to or makes a comment about the other on this thread will be blocked from it.