c4countdown

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:22 pm**

If I cant get my wish of monthly guest presenters then I would like to see one of either Tom Allen, Joe Lycett, Matt Lucas or Sandi Toksvig

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:30 pm**

#Deeks2021

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:46 pm**

Should or will? Possibly two different lists.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:14 pm**

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:30 pm #Deeks2021

It would be kinda nice to have former players in dictionary corner

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 8:14 pm**

Noel Edmonds
Richard Ayoade
Richard Osman

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 8:21 pm**

I presume Noel Edmonds is a joke.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 8:22 pm**

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:30 pm #Deeks2021

This would work.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 8:32 pm**

I mean, as long as they don't mind that I have no experience of hosting anything ever, I see no other problems. Can't be that hard to talk with an earpiece in, right? Might do some minicabbing for a bit, same sort of grind.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 8:38 pm**

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 8:21 pm I presume Noel Edmonds is a joke.

Only if he had enough clout to bring the show forward to 4pm and it was extended to an hour while we get the contestants sob stories

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:07 pm**

Victoria Coren-Mitchell
Rob Brydon

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:41 pm**

As I stated before, Colin Murray

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:08 pm**

I think they should do a few screentests and auditions for potential candidates, personally, regardless of stature. Potentially could go down the Rachel route and ask for anyone to apply.

If it is to be a big name, Colin Murray is the obvious choice.

But given that Jeff Stelling tried to revoke his resignation in 2011 I wouldn't mind seeing him back in the hot seat - and moreover, that article seems to imply it's up to Channel 4 rather than anyone like Damian et al, so they may end up going down the token diversity route.

Posted: **Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:30 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:08 pm But given that Jeff Stelling tried to revoke his resignation in 2011 I wouldn't mind seeing him back in the hot seat - and moreover, that article seems to imply it's up to Channel 4 rather than anyone like Damian et al, so they may end up going down the token diversity route.

I don't think I knew about that.

Also: "Exciting new star who will freshen it up" = Nick Hewer.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:54 am**

Damian - I'll do it for £50k. I'm a great straight man, and am almost guaranteed to pause and very briefly raise an eyebrow at 'amusing' words.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:40 pm**

I'll do it for £40k.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:23 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:08 pm ... so they may end up going down the token diversity route.

Why "token" ?

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:08 pm**

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:23 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:08 pm ... so they may end up going down the token diversity route.
Why "token" ?

Because the novelty factor would be the determining factor in the appointment.
Tokenistic filling of diversity quotas is happening a lot in the entertainment industry (particularly the US). I'm surprised the trend has managed to escape your notice.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:58 pm**

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:23 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:08 pm ... so they may end up going down the token diversity route.
Why "token" ?

Because whilst Colin Murray may be the obvious choice they may opt to not go for him solely because he's pale, male, and stale. That's what I mean.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:14 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:58 pm
Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:23 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:08 pm ... so they may end up going down the token diversity route.
Why "token" ?
Because whilst Colin Murray may be the obvious choice they may opt to not go for him solely because he's pale, male, and stale. That's what I mean.

So what's the difference between diversity and token diversity? Genuinely confused why - if the efforts to improve diversity are real - it's token?

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 10:40 pm**

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:14 pm
So what's the difference between diversity and token diversity? Genuinely confused why - if the efforts to improve diversity are real - it's token?

Don't know that it's worth rising to the bait...

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:04 pm**

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:14 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:58 pm
Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:23 pm

Why "token" ?
Because whilst Colin Murray may be the obvious choice they may opt to not go for him solely because he's pale, male, and stale. That's what I mean.
So what's the difference between diversity and token diversity? Genuinely confused why - if the efforts to improve diversity are real - it's token?

I've always felt that the best candidate for the job - any job - should be treated in a "difference blindness" way (hence partially why I argued for screentests and open auditions). You can argue about the merits of that all you like, but I just hope Colin Murray isn't rejected for that reason alone. That's all.

Posted: **Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:46 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:04 pm
Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 8:14 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:58 pm

Because whilst Colin Murray may be the obvious choice they may opt to not go for him solely because he's pale, male, and stale. That's what I mean.
So what's the difference between diversity and token diversity? Genuinely confused why - if the efforts to improve diversity are real - it's token?
I've always felt that the best candidate for the job - any job - should be treated in a "difference blindness" way (hence partially why I argued for screentests and open auditions). You can argue about the merits of that all you like, but I just hope Colin Murray isn't rejected for that reason alone. That's all.

I understand that viewpoint, albeit I don't entirely agree with it - but it still doesn't answer the question as to why attempts to improve diversity are token rather than real?

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:24 am**

What do we think the chances of someone like Paul Anderson actually getting this job are?

Rachel did not have a broadcasting background when she was selected for the arithmetician role...
Would ratings really suffer if the new host was not an established celeb of sorts? I'm not convinced they would. How many dedicated Nick Hewer fans (assuming such a thing exists) changed their viewing habits once he took over Countdown, and how many of those will desert the show once he retires?

Hmm...

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:39 am**

Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:46 pm I understand that viewpoint, albeit I don't entirely agree with it - but it still doesn't answer the question as to why attempts to improve diversity are token rather than real?

I think the idea is that if you use an instance of recruitment for a vacancy as a medium for the attempt to improve diversity, then that automatically means you're not using 'difference blindness' as you must be weighting applications based on demographic factors (such as race, sex, sexuality, etc.) that are irrelevant to the applicant's capability of performing the job.

In an ideal world, where biases on irrelevant factors had been eliminated, a difference-blindness approach would naturally lead to full diversity (taking into account level of interest) anyway. Obviously this isn't an ideal world, which is where the efforts to improve diversity come in.

I'm not claiming to speak for Rhys's views here - please correct me if you feel I'm misrepresenting you - but I think the anti-tokenism idea is that any efforts to improve diversity should be made separately of the recruitment process, so that any biases are eliminated as much as possible before the recruitment process begins rather than deliberately apply a bias in the other direction during the recruitment process so that the results are more diverse but the underlying problem of bias hasn't really been addressed.

I think it's worth noting though that while tokenism definitely exists, a cynical attitude towards it can be unhelpful both towards the efforts to improve diversity and the efforts to reduce bias (whether tokenistic 'positive' discrimination bias or just good old-fashioned 'negative' bias. Two of the names mentioned in this thread already (among others) have been Victoria Coren-Mitchell and Richard Ayoade. I think they are both excellent (but unlikely) candidates, and if either of them were to take the job it would be a real shame if people were to claim they were only offered it because they are female/black.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:45 am**

L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:24 am What do we think the chances of someone like Paul Anderson actually getting this job are?

Rachel did not have a broadcasting background when she was selected for the arithmetician role...
Would ratings really suffer if the new host was not an established celeb of sorts? I'm not convinced they would. How many dedicated Nick Hewer fans (assuming such a thing exists) changed their viewing habits once he took over Countdown, and how many of those will desert the show once he retires?

Hmm...

On merit I think Paul is in the top two of the current recognised contenders list, alongside Colin Murray. Obviously I'm backing Mark Deeks ahead of both of them, but the bookies have been slow to recognise his candidacy.

Depends if C4 will want a recognisable name though. It might give an initial bump to the viewing figures for people to tune in to see how that celebrity gets on in their new show, although I doubt any host name X-Factor will make a long term difference so they should just go for the person best suited to the job, and in my estimation Paul only has Colin and Mark to compete with there.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:28 am**

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:39 am
Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:46 pm I understand that viewpoint, albeit I don't entirely agree with it - but it still doesn't answer the question as to why attempts to improve diversity are token rather than real?
I think the idea is that if you use an instance of recruitment for a vacancy as a medium for the attempt to improve diversity, then that automatically means you're not using 'difference blindness' as you must be weighting applications based on demographic factors (such as race, sex, sexuality, etc.) that are irrelevant to the applicant's capability of performing the job.

In an ideal world, where biases on irrelevant factors had been eliminated, a difference-blindness approach would naturally lead to full diversity (taking into account level of interest) anyway. Obviously this isn't an ideal world, which is where the efforts to improve diversity come in.

I'm not claiming to speak for Rhys's views here - please correct me if you feel I'm misrepresenting you - but I think the anti-tokenism idea is that any efforts to improve diversity should be made separately of the recruitment process, so that any biases are eliminated as much as possible before the recruitment process begins rather than deliberately apply a bias in the other direction during the recruitment process so that the results are more diverse but the underlying problem of bias hasn't really been addressed.

I think it's worth noting though that while tokenism definitely exists, a cynical attitude towards it can be unhelpful both towards the efforts to improve diversity and the efforts to reduce bias (whether tokenistic 'positive' discrimination bias or just good old-fashioned 'negative' bias. Two of the names mentioned in this thread already (among others) have been Victoria Coren-Mitchell and Richard Ayoade. I think they are both excellent (but unlikely) candidates, and if either of them were to take the job it would be a real shame if people were to claim they were only offered it because they are female/black.

Thank you Callum

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:48 pm**

Nicely put Callum. This is also largely in agreement with what I was saying.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:15 pm**

Well if anyone doubts the extra mountains that have to be climbed, here's a good example of why positive discrimination is necessary from Damian's interview (and I think he mentioned the same story on FocalTalk?)

http://www.offthetelly.co.uk/oldott/www ... age_id=952

Arriving at Yorkshire TV at 11.30am, Eadie was taken straight to the bar where Meade promptly sat him down with a pint of lager and asked just one question: “Do you get PMT?”

If Damian had been a woman, or someone who did not drink for religious or cultural reasons, he'd not have been considered. The style and manner of the interview is clear that Meade was looking for someone like him.

I appreciate that this was a very long time ago, and things have come a long way, but this wasn't a one-off - jobs for lads have been a common thing - and probably still are, albeit with people more sensitive to the possibility of lawsuits!

My own experience when starting out in IT was applying for a comms job (a step up from the operator job I was doing!) was to be told that "crawling around under floors was no job for a young lady"

At college as one of the two females on the course, it was assumed that when working in teams I'd be doing the note taking etc. I could go on.

This stuff has been ingrained for decades - we are getting there, but there's a long history of a working cultures that favour straight, white men that takes time and sensitivity to change.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:45 pm**

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:39 am
Fiona T wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:46 pm I understand that viewpoint, albeit I don't entirely agree with it - but it still doesn't answer the question as to why attempts to improve diversity are token rather than real?
I'm not claiming to speak for Rhys's views here - please correct me if you feel I'm misrepresenting you [...]

You more or less got it spot on, don't worry. A couple of minor things were wrong but I'm not going to get hung up over them.

I'm not pro- or anti- a black person and/or a woman doing it (indeed, one of the names on my shortlist is Moira Stuart) but I think the sole criteria should be best person for the job, and demographics shouldn't be a factor one way or the other.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:15 pm Well if anyone doubts the extra mountains that have to be climbed, here's a good example of why positive discrimination is necessary [...]

I appreciate your point of view, Fiona, but as a gay man there's nothing I hate more than being given "positive discrimination" preferential treatment. It tells me that I'm not good enough to make it on my own right and need "help". I just want to be treated the same as others - neither helped nor hindered.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:00 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:45 pm I appreciate your point of view, Fiona, but as a gay man there's nothing I hate more than being given "positive discrimination" preferential treatment. It tells me that I'm not good enough to make it on my own right and need "help". I just want to be treated the same as others - neither helped nor hindered.

Well sport - football especially - is a good example where up until very recently, gay players generally were not publicly 'out'. I think you're young enough that possibly the worst sort of discrimination was before your time, and so hopefully your employment prospects won't be affected by your sexuality, but there is no doubt that the chances of people currently in their late 40s/50s have been affected.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 4:28 pm**

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:45 am
L'oisleatch McGraw wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 2:24 am Obviously I'm backing Mark Deeks ahead of both of them.
Whaaat?!
That's rideekulous!

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:27 pm**

Fiona T wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:00 pm

Well sport - football especially - is a good example where up until very recently, gay players generally were not publicly 'out'. I think you're young enough that possibly the worst sort of discrimination was before your time, and so hopefully your employment prospects won't be affected by your sexuality, but there is no doubt that the chances of people currently in their late 40s/50s have been affected.

Straying off topic a little, but as far as I've noticed, gay male elite footballers still aren't publicly 'out'. I think there's one current player in the top US league - and even if we call that 'elite' (and heck, I'm a Scottish football fan so...) that's still an exception to the rule. There's also been one or two in the amateur or semi-professional leagues in the UK, but the only Premier League player to come out so far waited after retirement to do so.

Posted: **Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:07 pm**

After all this diversity chat, I got an e-mail today off the back of being on Countdown in 2020 with a diversity form to fill out for Diamond, a 'diversity network' set up to obtain diversity data for the big broadcasters.

Posted: **Thu Dec 10, 2020 7:19 pm**

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 6:07 pm After all this diversity chat, I got an e-mail today off the back of being on Countdown in 2020 with a diversity form to fill out for Diamond, a 'diversity network' set up to obtain diversity data for the big broadcasters.

Legal duty to report on it I believe.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2020 6:50 pm**

I'm surprised there aren't many suggestions on here. Colin's probably the favourite, but I'm not sure if he'd have time for the permanent job. A few ideas from the Bishop household.

David Baddiel. I've always thought he'd be good at it. He has that perfect combination of wordiness, intellectual curiosity and uselessness at the game itself. He's probably too busy with his books and stand up though at the moment.

Adrian Chiles. He definitely has the time. As far as I can tell his only big commitment is a weekly radio show. He has that journalist's interest in other people, so should be good at talking to contestants and can easily perform the grumpy old man looking back on the old days schtick that hosts often take part in.

Matthew Wright. I used to enjoy his Channel 5 show. He's very good at building a rapport with people and has slight naughty twinkle in the eye. He's leaving his radio show so would be available.

Posted: **Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:51 am**

Someone with a bit of pullibg power to get diverse guests.
No not Laurence Fox but Dawn French

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:11 am**

I understand that due to Nick shielding and Colin Murray being unavailable ther will be no filmiming of Countdown Next week.
Hopefully we wont have to get repeats because of this

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:17 am**

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:11 am I understand that due to Nick Shielding and Colin Murray being unavailable ther will be no filmiming of Countdown Next week.
Hopefully we wont have to get repeats because of this

Who is Nick Shielding and why is he unavailable?

I'm told they have enough shows recorded to last until 4th March, anyway.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:21 am**

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:17 am
Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:11 am I understand that due to Nick Shielding and Colin Murray being unavailable ther will be no filmiming of Countdown Next week.
Hopefully we wont have to get repeats because of this
Who is Nick Shielding and why is he unavailable?

I'm told they have enough shows recorded to last until 4th March, anyway.

I saw a facebook post quoting Mr Eadie so I assume its true but I'm not sure why Nick is shielding

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:31 am**

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:21 am
Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:17 am
Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:11 am I understand that due to Nick Shielding and Colin Murray being unavailable ther will be no filmiming of Countdown Next week.
Hopefully we wont have to get repeats because of this
Who is Nick Shielding and why is he unavailable?

I'm told they have enough shows recorded to last until 4th March, anyway.
I saw a facebook post quoting Mr Eadie so I assume its true but I'm not sure why Nick is shielding

*whoosh*

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:26 pm**

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:33 pm**

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 11:31 am
Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 10:21 am
Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:17 am

Who is Nick Shielding and why is he unavailable?

I'm told they have enough shows recorded to last until 4th March, anyway.
I saw a facebook post quoting Mr Eadie so I assume its true but I'm not sure why Nick is shielding
*whoosh*

I was treating it with the contempt it deserved.

Keen eyed viewers may have noticed I made the same typo in my original reply before I edited it

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 3:44 pm**

I didn't like that Murray bloke at first but i am warming to him. I still prefer Nick.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:40 pm**

Supposedly there'll be an article tomorrow about my candidacy...will link it when I see it.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:42 pm**

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:40 pm Supposedly there'll be an article tomorrow about my candidacy...will link it when I see it.

Are you really standing for the job? Good luck Paul if you are!

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:06 pm**

Well, I told them that was the case...it'll be light-hearted I assume

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:09 pm**

Any chance of the name of the paper?

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:15 pm**

I'll link it when it appears don't worry

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:23 pm**

Was it you that appeared on the betting?

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:08 pm**

Nick has announced on Twitter he's filming until early May.

https://twitter.com/Nick_Hewer?ref_src= ... r%5Eauthor

I guess that means Nick will complete series 83, and the new host will take over at start of series 84 at end June/start of July.

Posted: **Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:18 pm**

When does Murray finish? When is Nick back?

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:06 am**

https://extra.ie/2021/01/24/entertainme ... senter-gig

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:40 am**

Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:06 am https://extra.ie/2021/01/24/entertainme ... senter-gig

Good luck! You may be in for a chance!. I do think they will give Colin the job though, they may have already offered it him!

Posted: **Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm**

Interesting article. Good luck with it.

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:54 pm**

Jonathan Willis wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:40 am
Paul Anderson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 11:06 am https://extra.ie/2021/01/24/entertainme ... senter-gig
Good luck! You may be in for a chance!. I do think they will give Colin the job though, they may have already offered it him!

I think Colin should be a shoe in but he has fingers in lots of pies, Snooker, Darts, Football and Gridiron..
I think he should have an able deputy to fill in at times rather than spread himself too thin and end up like Jeff Stelling.

Posted: **Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:26 pm**

I think there are two options:

- Colin Murray (the correct option)
- anyone else (the incorrect option)

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2021 4:17 am**

So, are we still loving Colin in Nick's chair?

I was mostly onboard until Monday's episode where some doubts arose.
In that episode he did these things...

-------------------------------------------
1. Gave a stern "pens down" instruction to the challenger in one of her first letters rounds, then proceeded to ask her for her solution first, even though it was the champion's turn to declare first. He made clear that this was a punitive measure as she was still writing after 30s.

2. Bantered with Rachel in a weird way to suggest that she said the target was easy... but that she was wrong it was hard and she spoke too soon. Rachel reminded him that what she actually said was that 1L was *potentially* an easy one. She was a bit awkward when the six small came out and stressed (in Colin's direction) that it *might* pose a challenge.

3. When the champion said he had a numbers round, but "Not written down", Colin was again unnecessarily stern as he demanded the answer be called out "post haste". The contestant then started to rush through it with a nervous energy that made for uncomfortable viewing.
------------------------------------------

I get that Colin is a big fan of the show, and gets heavily invested in the game as a competition, but he may be well advised to wind his neck in a bit on occasions such as these. Whatever can be said about previous hosts of the show, they were always kind at heart. This is one of the MOST important attributes a Countdown host should display.

Early days yet. I am still of the opinion that he could be an excellent permanent host for the show... but not as confident in that assertion.

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:08 pm**

I don't mind reverse declarations. You can see this in many games in the past, I think Stelling did it as a matter of course. Even in the Gotcha, Whiteley asks the "wrong" player first on the DIARRHOEA round.

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:22 pm**

I haven't paid that close attention but I have noticed in round 1 Colin asks the challenger for their length first on at least some occasions. Is he generally consistent in how he does things?

Posted: **Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:48 pm**

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:08 pm I don't mind reverse declarations. You can see this in many games in the past, I think Stelling did it as a matter of course. Even in the Gotcha, Whiteley asks the "wrong" player first on the DIARRHOEA round.

Declaring second is a definite advantage. In my first game, I had a 6 or a dodgy 8. My opponent declared 7 (he told me after he also had the dodgy 8).
Going for the 8 was a no-brainer, and it was in and I took the round.

I don't know if I'd have gone for the 6 or 8 if I'd declared first - the selection looked better than a 6 so might well have risked it anyway - but my opponent would certainly have matched it.

Messing about with the order of the declarations seems wrong and could influence the game result.

c4countdown

Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?

Re: Who should replace Nick Hewer?