i dont think i could stomach another season of those 2 clowns let alone 7

I've never known a pair of sports commentators about whom there is as much general ill-feeling across the board. These guys may think they eat and breathe RL, but they do a lot of damage to the game. Their small-minded parochialism is as much a talking-point these days as the action on the pitch, their negativity and stupidity (Paul Wellens - "the best player on Earth", Keiron Cunningham should be beatified - for passing from dummy-half!, the inane in-jokes, the Stevo word bingo, the utter lack of professionalism when it comes to personal preferences, etc) has made a mockery of the sport.

So many fans I know won't watch Sky's coverage these days, or will only do so with reservations.

We'd honestly be better with that twonk Mick Morgan. At least he was openly biased and unapologetically ignorant.

Please, someone get rid.

I think Bill Arthur and Barrie McDermott and Terry Oconner do a good job

I actually don't mind commentators "supporting" a team, I just wish they were open about it. Let all the commentators be open about it, and if things go wrong, be ripped into for it. It works very well for a lot of American sport and at least it brings a banter element as opposed the current poorly veiled "unbiased" commentary that goes on now.

I was watching the Grand Final again recently and thought Eddie did a good job. He can be a good commentator when he sticks to the game, Stevo on the other hand needs getting rid of. He's no idea about how the game is played anymore and provides nothing more than the odd daft remark.

Also they had Eddie Stevo Clarke Carney McRae and Cummings doing commentary/in game analysis, surely this is overkill and they need to spread them around, in pretty much every other sport they have a commentator and one colour analyst. We have 6 people talking over each other.

And Phil Clarke and all the other ex -pie lads . .

Half way through last season Stevo announced a further 3 years then calling it a day which is end of 2016/2017.

we'll see

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.