Seeing as Sky have secured a long term deal with Super League does this mean we have to listen to those idiots for another 7 years

I genuinely don't mind them. Are there better out there? Yes, but to me it's all pantomime.

There time is running out and they both know it and despite the odd annoyance I do find them amusing.

I will be sad to see them go as realistically they are the team I have grown up with other than Ray French.

One thing is for sure when they do go they need to take "Baz and Tez" et al with them.

The thought of Bill Arthur and one of those cronies taking over does fill me with dread.

This is the one point we saw with Andrew Voss, he stuck to the game, he was enthusiastic, KNOWLEDEGABLE ! witty and generally very good indeed.

Hemmings and Stevo have had there day, past there sell by date.

Its good news that we have signed (Hopefully) An improved deal with sky, but if they are the broadcaster for the flagship comp, then there coverage and commentary needs to be re-vamped and given a serious makeover indeed.

The million dollar question is who would we want ? I honestly cant see VOSSY coming over here unless he is offered big bucks and 1st class travel and more importantly CHIP BUTTIES !

While it's true that the Eddie and Stevo partnership can be annoying and that they are very predictable in what phrases they will use the same would happen with any combination that gets seen (and heard) as regularly as those two. They are the commentating and presenting duo for almost every single match so are overexposed to the audience and the repeat phrases become familiar sooner, they get heard more often and people get sick of them. The same though would happen with any replacements. If Andrew Voss for example took over and was doing 95% of the live games then within a season or two there would be people moaning about him mentioning where he had his tea pre-match all the time, or giving nicknames to players that people were sick of hearing and so on.

I am one of the people that find Eddie and Stevo and their unnecessary hyperbole, repeated "Stevo Bingo" phrases, focusing on referee errors (in their opinion) rather than genuine good play and so on annoying. The problem though is not their perceived bias or formulaic way of commentating, it is that they are simply covering too high a proportion of the games. If there was a second (or even third) commentary/presenting team that was used instead on a regular basis then viewers would get a break from the most annoying ones and the annoying aspects of the way they present/commentate. Even if they only used two teams of two but altered the pairings to give variation it would be better. Unless rotation of presenters and commentators starts to happen to give a more even split then whoever does the job will be or will soon become just as annoying.

I don't know what the present deal is with Sky, but in the Manchester Evening News tonight it is quoting a figure thought to be in excess of £200 million for the 5 year deal.