Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Matt Cooper fawning over Setanta

  • 07-03-2009 5:13pm
    #1
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭


    Listened to the last bit of the last word on Friday, and Matt's bias on the subject of TV is annoying the crap out of me.

    He goes on and on about RTE getting our money as a TV licence, and then comes out with the fact that he hopes Setanta pull through in the current climate (and with vastly-reduced matches) because they're a valuable service since they started (or some such crap).

    So 166 for some matches is objectionable, Matt ? But 270 isn't ?

    I love the show, and I love the way that he covers topics that he's not biased about, but this is going to turn me off......

    Basically, because of the duopoly of Sky & Setanta, if you want to watch Munster Rugby matches you have to subscribe to 2 different channels, costing almost 500 a year.

    These matches used to be on RTE, as part of your TV licence.

    There are pros and cons to competition, and to the TV licence; Matt needs to go back to being unbiased on this topic, which he kinda used to be before he got involved with TV3.......


Comments

  • #2
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Does Cooper have a contract with Santana for anything, like rugby?


  • #3
    GSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,858 ✭✭✭GSF


    mike65 wrote: »
    Does Cooper have a contract with Santana for anything, like rugby?
    No. Perhaps he doesn't want a lot of Irish people in a private company that have show a lot of entreprenurial spirit to be thrown out of jobs.


  • #4
    bbability
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,504 ✭✭✭bbability


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I love the show, and I love the way that he covers topics that he's not biased about, but this is going to turn me off......

    Matt needs to go back to being unbiased on this topic, which he kinda used to be before he got involved with TV3.......

    Matt Cooper is the most biased broadcaster (if a broadaster is what you want to call him) on the airwaves. He's forgotten the golden rule of broadcasting... never take sides and always be impartial. That bit he has not got a grip of. Just ask any civil servant. He's up there with Turlough O Sullivan as been the most annoying person in the public spectrum.


  • #5
    raven136
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,929 ✭✭✭raven136


    I had to listen to various Rte staff maoning about their loss of coverage of football and rugby the last two years so i have no problem with Cooper saying he hopes they pull through.

    Setanta offer an alternative and the cover far more sports than an Rte would.

    On the issue of him being biased,people dont seem to mind too much.I always found it odd that he has a cloumn in the Sunday Times and a radio show where he is meant to cover the same topics.


  • #6
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Listened to the last bit of the last word on Friday, and Matt's bias on the subject of TV is annoying the crap out of me.

    He goes on and on about RTE getting our money as a TV licence, and then comes out with the fact that he hopes Setanta pull through in the current climate (and with vastly-reduced matches) because they're a valuable service since they started (or some such crap).

    So 166 for some matches is objectionable, Matt ? But 270 isn't ?

    I love the show, and I love the way that he covers topics that he's not biased about, but this is going to turn me off......

    Basically, because of the duopoly of Sky & Setanta, if you want to watch Munster Rugby matches you have to subscribe to 2 different channels, costing almost 500 a year.
    TV3.......

    That's competition and fair play to Setanta as an indigeneous broadcaster for both taking on the home market and the UK market. Not going off to topic but most people who hop off a plane anywhere in the world have a realistic expectation of being able to watch the Football final live from Croke Park and this is thanks to Setanta.
    Basically, because of the duopoly of Sky & Setanta, if you want to watch Munster Rugby matches you have to subscribe to 2 different channels, costing almost 500 a year.

    You don't have to subscribe and before Setanta arrived it was a monopoly in the pay per view sector. Also as professional sports the various organisations are entitled to seek the best bids for the TV rights to watch their games.
    These matches used to be on RTE, as part of your TV licence.

    They were never a part of the TV licence. The TV licence just allows you to 'legally' possess and use a TV set. The games were only on RTE becuase they were the only show in town and most UK sports codes were not interested in the Irish market in the past.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    bbability wrote: »
    Matt Cooper is the most biased broadcaster (if a broadaster is what you want to call him) on the airwaves. He's forgotten the golden rule of broadcasting... never take sides and always be impartial. That bit he has not got a grip of. Just ask any civil servant. He's up there with Turlough O Sullivan as been the most annoying person in the public spectrum.

    I wouldn't find Turlough O'Sullivan half as annoying as Jack O'Connor.


  • #8
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    BrianD wrote: »
    That's competition and fair play to Setanta

    It's not proper "competition" if the only reason someone bids higher is because they get us sods to pay for something that we used to get for free.
    BrianD wrote: »
    You don't have to subscribe
    You do if you want to get "back" the matches that were previously on RTE - e.g. Magner's League & Heineken Cup.
    BrianD wrote: »
    Also as professional sports the various organisations are entitled to seek the best bids for the TV rights to watch their games.

    True, and some of the fault is with them; they should also be keeping in mind the need to get the widest audience possible, but they seem to be more interested in money. Some money is OK, because it's needed at grassroots to improve facilities, etc, but small fortunes is ridiculous!
    BrianD wrote: »
    They were never a part of the TV licence. The TV licence just allows you to 'legally' possess and use a TV set.

    True, but RTE used that money to get coverage of the games.
    BrianD wrote: »
    ....most UK sports codes were not interested in the Irish market in the past.

    Since when is rugby a "UK sports code" ?

    All I'm saying is that we have to pay 166 for RTE, which USED TO BE great value before the subscription-based channels decided that they'd charge us more and use that to bid for stuff that we used to get for free.

    Again, if they can pull that off, fair play to 'em......but it's VERY two-faced of Cooper to complain about the 166 that used to give you matches while praising to high heaven the companies that charge you nearly twice that to show half the matches.


  • #9
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    It's not proper "competition" if the only reason someone bids higher is because they get us sods to pay for something that we used to get for free.

    It is proper competition as you have an increased number of bidders for the rights each using funding according to their business plans. The only way that independent commercial broadcasters can fund a bid is through a subscription based model. The alternative would be to have commercial breaks right through the game! You're not a 'sod' you are paying to see content that is in demand.
    You do if you want to get "back" the matches that were previously on RTE - e.g. Magner's League & Heineken Cup.

    The only reason that RTE had these games is that they either outbid competitors or were the sole bidder for these games.

    True, and some of the fault is with them; they should also be keeping in mind the need to get the widest audience possible, but they seem to be more interested in money. Some money is OK, because it's needed at grassroots to improve facilities, etc, but small fortunes is ridiculous!

    All of the fault is with them! Each of the sporting codes or leagues could decide to automatically grant their rights to a specific broadcaster or to all broadcasters. If RTE and the BBC were the only broadcasters in town the various sports would have access to millions of viewers but probably very little money. The reality is that gate receipts at stadiums aren't sufficient and TV rights income is necessary.
    True, but RTE used that money to get coverage of the games.
    RTE have to balance their budget. If there was no competition in the past they would have got the rugby games for a song. The rugby league wouldn't have got much out of them so there pros and cons depending on which side of the fence you stand.

    Since when is rugby a "UK sports code" ?
    It was a generalisation and while I obviously agree that rugby is not a strictly a 'UK' only sports code the league is not an indigenous league. AFAIK it's a UK based league but obviously spans a number of countries. I am guessing that they would treat all TV markets like the UK - highest bidder wins.
    All I'm saying is that we have to pay 166 for RTE, which USED TO BE great value before the subscription-based channels decided that they'd charge us more and use that to bid for stuff that we used to get for free.
    That's the business of sport but there is no connection between your licence fee and the programmes that are provided now or up to now. It doesn't guarantee any particular type of programming.
    Again, if they can pull that off, fair play to 'em......but it's VERY two-faced of Cooper to complain about the 166 that used to give you matches while praising to high heaven the companies that charge you nearly twice that to show half the matches.

    I wouldn't agree. The issues regarding that he has regarding the licence fee are separate and unrelated. It is not reasonable to compare the subscription that you to pay view premium games (along with other content) on a commercial TV station with a TV licence that is used to generally fund a state broadcaster.


  • #10
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    BrianD wrote: »
    That's the business of sport but there is no connection between your licence fee and the programmes that are provided now or up to now. It doesn't guarantee any particular type of programming.
    Neither, apparently, does your Setanta subscription; if you signed up for the 270 quid you are no longer guaranteed your 90 matches or whatever it was.
    BrianD wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree. The issues regarding that he has regarding the licence fee are separate and unrelated. It is not reasonable to compare the subscription that you to pay view premium games (along with other content) on a commercial TV station with a TV licence that is used to generally fund a state broadcaster.

    Precisely my point.....I'm not saying that they are equal, but I am saying that they are only "premium" games because Setanta & Sky said so. Previously they were just "games" that were available.

    There are LOTS of pros and cons, but to me it is hypocritical to say "what's the point of the licence, there's no value for money in it" while saying "it's great that we can have the privilege of forking out 270 to see games that used to be available free".

    If RTE DID use the TV licence to bid more for the matches, you can be damn sure that Matt would be bleating about how unfair it was to TV3......

    Bottom line is that I used to pay 166 and get to see most games that I wanted, and I would have had no objection to paying to see MORE games; I do object to now having to play almost 500 EXTRA if I want to see the same games, and that is down to Sky & Setanta's business model.....


  • #11
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,663 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    GSF wrote: »
    No. Perhaps he doesn't want a lot of Irish people in a private company that have show a lot of entreprenurial spirit to be thrown out of jobs.

    He has a deal with TV3 though, who are owned by the same people as Setanta so he is hardly neutral.

    I agree with him on this though, no-one should want Setanta to go under.

    However imo Cooper has shown a lot of bias toward TV3 and Setanta in the past in his columns and on the radio which is at the very least dubious as he is far from impartial.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    As I keep telling the posters here, never take anyone commentator at absolute face value.

    Always look behindstance taken, in most cases you will find some vested interest,however tenuous.

    This is especially true in the commercial arena.

    Don't take G Ryan's word that the Fitzpatrick Hotels are best in New York as he has no doubt probably had a freebie there at some stage.
    That's not to say they are excellent establishments.


  • #13
    focusfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43 ✭focusfan


    GSF wrote: »
    No. Perhaps he doesn't want a lot of Irish people in a private company that have show a lot of entreprenurial spirit to be thrown out of jobs.

    Yes but next weekend every man,woman and child will be able to view hopefully one of Ireland's greatest sporting achievements no thanks to Setanta. In an age that more choice=more crap that is a refreshing change


Advertisement