Ryan Tubridy - Radio Shows Thread

joannaman

mikom wrote: »

Of an evening I like to sit back in my easychair with a book on JFK, Sinatra on the phonograph, and one hand in the jellybean jar.
After a while on the rocking chair it's up to my bedroom covered in posters of Sorcha Ronan, laying my head on a matress packed with 50's I dream once again of Wonka-land.

This post wins the thread.

mrsdewinter

Whew. I really liked that half-hour before the 10 o'clock news. An ordinary father and an ordinary mother talking about the pressure on their families. Had to turn over when I heard Frisky musing about her Tipperary roots. Waidaminit: you've a sexy radio voice, a sense of humour *and* you have a bog-standard Irish surname like 'Corcoran'???? You can't mess with Tubs' head like that, Frisky!!

littlefriend

Caught about an hour of the show today and I have to say it was much better than the other times I've listened.

telekon

littlefriend wrote: »

Caught about an hour of the show today and I have to say it was much better than the other times I've listened.

Was Dave Fanning filling in for Tubbers again?

Rubik.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The indo at him again this morning, I think some common sense is required there...They are watching his ratings like hawks every week. THe Late Late is still a big draw. TO be honest I think a better presenter might lose more ratings, such is the nature of RTE viewers. For example, if they replaced killinascully with something funny, it's rating would drop by 600,000 straight away.
killinascully = 700,000 approx
savage eye = 150,000 approx

The herald really has it in for him. Headlines from the past week...

Should RTE take Tubridy off Late Late?


Gerry had it... poor Tubs hasn't


Last vestige of Gerry dumped from Tubs show
‎
‎‎
Picture that shows why 'real' people are turning off Tubridy

‎
Ryan Tubridy has 16 weeks to save his career


and today's...

Pressure mounting on Tubridy after Late Late plunges to alarming low

‎it's all getting a bit OTT now, from today...

"There's an air of doom around the Late Late right now. Even Tubridy himself couldn't hide it on Friday night, and one of his eyes was weepy." :rolleyes:

I suspect the real reason for the papers hostility was given in todays article - "Ryan has refused Herald requests for an interview."

So basically, if Tubridy had given them a few interviews their coverage of him would have been all sweetness and light, disastrous ratings...etc ignored.

Poly

Does the Herald just cut & paste our thread?

easychair

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

each to their own, but those who watch and get some satisfaction from x factor are lacking something..

What about those who watch and listen to Tubridy, at the same time as claiming they can't stand him and that he is a rotten broadcaster?

lempsipmax

Listened to his interview with Brendan O'Carroll yesterday morning and heard a bit of him this morning in the car and I have to say that he was fine..perfectly passable. No gaffes. Still not very engaging but its only fair to acknowledge when he does a good job......

Rookster

In return for 600k of taxpayer's money per annum I should hope he does a good job.

Ash.J.Williams

lempsipmax wrote: »

Listened to his interview with Brendan O'Carroll yesterday morning and heard a bit of him this morning in the car and I have to say that he was fine..perfectly passable. No gaffes. Still not very engaging but its only fair to acknowledge when he does a good job......

Yeah i heard that too, I 've actually started to respect Brendan,i admire the way he cannot get a good review in this country yet still defies the odds by selling out venues and massive ratings!! He knows his audience!

easychair

Rookster wrote: »

In return for 600k of taxpayer's money per annum I should hope he does a good job.

We've been over this before. The money he is paid comes from those who choose to have tv and choose to purchase a licence for their tv. those who have tv's and have licenses for them are both taxpayers, and non taxpayers.

It might seem like spiltting hairs, but I, for example, have a house in Ireland, pay tax ni Ireland, and choose not to have a tv, and do not contribute towards Tubridy's salary. I know of other who choose not to have tv and who also don't pay the licence fee.

Imhof Tank

easychair wrote: »

We've been over this before. The money he is paid comes from those who choose to have tv and choose to purchase a licence for their tv. those who have tv's and have licenses for them are both taxpayers, and non taxpayers.

It might seem like spiltting hairs, but I, for example, have a house in Ireland, pay tax ni Ireland, and choose not to have a tv, and do not contribute towards Tubridy's salary. I know of other who choose not to have tv and who also don't pay the licence fee.

Yes, it is splitting hairs considering that people in your position represent a tiny franction of .01% of all taxpayers.

In any case the point made was that 100%of the €600k comes from taxpayers which is correct; he wasnt saying that each and every taxpayer contributed a pro rata share of their tax to the €600k.

Ash.J.Williams

easychair wrote: »

We've been over this before. The money he is paid comes from those who choose to have tv and choose to purchase a licence for their tv. those who have tv's and have licenses for them are both taxpayers, and non taxpayers.

It might seem like spiltting hairs, but I, for example, have a house in Ireland, pay tax ni Ireland, and choose not to have a tv, and do not contribute towards Tubridy's salary. I know of other who choose not to have tv and who also don't pay the licence fee.

yes but what if you did have a tv?...are you suggesting we all move to london to avoid contributing to dlb's salary? That's a bit extreme isn't it?

mikom

easychair wrote: »

We've been over this before. The money he is paid comes from those who choose to have tv and choose to purchase a licence for their tv. those who have tv's and have licenses for them are both taxpayers, and non taxpayers.

It might seem like spiltting hairs, but I, for example, have a house in Ireland, pay tax ni Ireland, and choose not to have a tv, and do not contribute towards Tubridy's salary. I know of other who choose not to have tv and who also don't pay the licence fee.

Splitting hairs?
More like splitting atoms.
An "I'm alright jack" argument that anybody could see through.

JonathanAnon

I dont see why people are being so pedantic.. If you have a telly, and most people do, you have to pay Tubridy's wages..

easychair

Imhof Tank wrote: »

In any case the point made was that 100%of the €600k comes from taxpayers which is correct; he wasnt saying that each and every taxpayer contributed a pro rata share of their tax to the €600k.

For the sake of accuracy, anyone who has, for example, a holiday home in Ireland with a tv is not a taxpayer in the generally accepted use of that term, but does pay the licence fee.

I am at a loss to know why it seems so important to pretend that RTE receives money from the general taxation pool, It doesn't. If its important to you to pretend that RTE gets paid out of taxation, then feel free to continue to believe it. But it's neither true, or accurate.

Ash.J.Williams

easychair wrote: »

For the sake of accuracy, anyone who has, for example, a holiday home in Ireland with a tv is not a taxpayer in the generally accepted use of that term, but does pay the licence fee.

I am at a loss to know why it seems so important to pretend that RTE receives money from the general taxation pool, It doesn't. If its important to you to pretend that RTE gets paid out of taxation, then feel free to continue to believe it. But it's neither true, or accurate.

I guess people are wondering that if RTE makes a loss after it's license fee contribution and advertising, the shortfall must be paid from somewhere else?

easychair

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I guess people are wondering that if RTE makes a loss after it's license fee contribution and advertising, the shortfall must be paid from somewhere else?

What people? Even if they are wondering, that doesn't change the fact which is that RTE is funded by the licence fee, levied on those who own a tv set.

I am not aware of any arrangement whereby the government has guaranteed the debts of RTE, or any occasion where the Government has written a cheque to RTE to cover its relatively small overdraft. Are you, or any of the people you talk about?

Rubik.

easychair wrote: »

I am not aware of any arrangement whereby the government has guaranteed the debts of RTE, or any occasion where the Government has written a cheque to RTE to cover its relatively small overdraft. Are you, or any of the people you talk about?

I wouldn't call a deficit of around 34 million euro a "relatively small overdraft".

littlefriend

This thread is kind of irritating me for the last few days. I wonder will someone say don't read it if it is annoying you (like ppl say don't listen to RT if he annoys you) - they'd have a point I think.

What do ppl think he should do about his wages? Negotiate an amount that is less than what his peers (in RTE) get paid?

He is being slated every day in the papers and online. However, I do think the show seems a bit better this week - maybe he'll turn it around. Will people acknowledge it if he does I wonder?

withless

Its not just Tubridy thats on trial here, the whole system is on trial. And its guilty.

littlefriend

withless wrote: »

Its not just Tubridy thats on trial here, the whole system is on trial. And its guilty.

I'm not saying the system is right - its absolutely not - I'm just saying he gets a lot of abuse because of it which isn't actually his fault. Do you know what I mean?

mikom

easychair wrote: »

What people? Even if they are wondering, that doesn't change the fact which is that RTE is funded by the licence fee, levied on those who own a tv set.

I am not aware of any arrangement whereby the government has guaranteed the debts of RTE, or any occasion where the Government has written a cheque to RTE to cover its relatively small overdraft. Are you, or any of the people you talk about?

Although receiving both a penal licence fee and advertising revenue RTE managed to rack up a loss of €16.5m in 2009.
Who backed them?

easychair

Rubik. wrote: »

I wouldn't call a deficit of around 34 million euro a "relatively small overdraft".

Neither would most individuals, myself included.

However, for a company with a turnover of hundreds of millions, it is relatively small.

easychair

mikom wrote: »

Although receiving both a penal licence fee and advertising revenue RTE managed to rack up a loss of €16.5m in 2009.
Who backed them?

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are implying that any company which reports a loss needs to have someone somewhere else write a cheque for the loss, then that indicates you are not very familiar with corporate finance.

It's quite possible for RTE to report a loss, and the loss being born by RTE itself. Thats what normally happens.

Why is RTE reporting a loss for a year an issue in a thread about Turbidy?

mikom

easychair wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. If you are implying that any company which reports a loss needs to have someone somewhere else write a cheque for the loss, then that indicates you are not very familiar with corporate finance.

It's quite possible for RTE to report a loss, and the loss being born by RTE itself. Thats what normally happens.

In the case of RTE it will inevitably be used as a bargining chip when they go cap in hand to the government for an increase in licence fee.
So it will be the public who bear this loss.
RTE is a long way from "corporate finance".

easychair wrote: »

Why is RTE reporting a loss for a year an issue in a thread about Turbidy?

Maybe the fact that he earns more than half a million.

easychair

mikom wrote: »

In the case of RTE it will inevitably be used as a bargining chip when they go cap in hand to the government for an increase in licence fee.
So it will be the public who bear this loss.
RTE is a long way from "corporate finance".




Maybe the fact that he earns more than half a million.

Sure, RTE may well use it as a bargaining chip, and I can't blame them for trying to protect what they see as their own interests. How RTE trying to use a oss as a bargaining chip translates to "the public" paying for their loss seems uncertain. RTE is a company, and its finances are corporate.

Rubik.

easychair wrote: »

However, for a company with a turnover of hundreds of millions, it is relatively small.

It isn't.

easychair wrote: »

RTE is a company, and its finances are corporate.

Over half its finances comes from the public.

easychair

Rubik. wrote: »

It isn't.

We'll just have to disagree as to whether a loss of +-€16 million out of a budget of hundreds of millions is relatively small or not. Simply starting a pantomime of "oh yes it is" oh no it isn't" isn't going to progress the discussion.

Rubik.

easychair wrote: »

We'll just have to disagree as to whether a loss of +-€16 million out of a budget of hundreds of millions is relatively small or not. Simply starting a pantomime of "oh yes it is" oh no it isn't" isn't going to progress the discussion.

RTE has lost €70m in annual commercial revenues from mid-2008, this not going change anytime soon and there is no hope that the government is going to increase the licence fee. So in the current climate a 34 million euro deficit is not a relatively small amount. The deficits that RTE has incurred over the recent years has resulted in 200 people losing their jobs, around 9% of the total workforce and a further 90 are to go this year.

Btw easychair, your passive aggressive style of posting is particularly annoying.