Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

BPKS

Tell me how wrote: »

When was/is he on OTB?

Case was struck out btw.

I've heard him on pre Dublin games and on roadshows.

And the case was struck out due to an Irish Language loophole.:rolleyes:

EDIT: and my point is nothing against the fella in question, he seems like a decent bloke and we all make mistakes.

My point was about the level of consistency required when you present this "holier than thou" attitude that prevails amongst most of the OTB crew.

Tell me how

BPKS wrote: »

I've heard him on pre Dublin games and on roadshows.

And the case was struck out due to an Irish Language loophole.:rolleyes:

EDIT: and my point is nothing against the fella in question, he seems like a decent bloke and we all make mistakes.

My point was about the level of consistency required when you present this "holier than thou" attitude that prevails amongst most of the OTB crew.

This holier than thou attitude seems to exist more in the minds of some who like to complain about the show for any reason than it does on the airwaves.

BPKS

Tell me how wrote: »

This holier than thou attitude seems to exist more in the minds of some who like to complain about the show for any reason than it does on the airwaves.

Perhaps.

And perhaps I could say the same about those who defend any criticism of the show to the hilt.

Tell me how

BPKS wrote: »

Perhaps.

And perhaps I could say the same about those who defend any criticism of the show to the hilt.

Maybe you could, if such a poster existed.

TomasMacR

BPKS wrote: »

I've heard him on pre Dublin games and on roadshows.

And the case was struck out due to an Irish Language loophole.:rolleyes:

EDIT: and my point is nothing against the fella in question, he seems like a decent bloke and we all make mistakes.

My point was about the level of consistency required when you present this "holier than thou" attitude that prevails amongst most of the OTB crew.

Just on that one...If I was done and nobody was hurt I’d have done the same if I could’ve got off on a loophole. Not so I could drive and wipe the sweat of my brow and head off to the pub to celebrate getting off and drive home after but the conviction will give you issues for the rest of your life.

They’ve high profile guests on all the time, everyone has cobwebs, if they were to blacklist all of these guests due to their past there would be a grand total of f*ck all people to have on...so they say nothing much as to high profile pundits and guests as they need listeners. They work for Denis O Brien ffs...the biggest crook scumbag we’ve produced yet.

I understand your point, they can’t have it both ways.

Tell me how wrote: »

This holier than thou attitude seems to exist more in the minds of some who like to complain about the show for any reason than it does on the airwaves.

But they from time to time. Which is why they really should STFU, They do over-politicise some things for a sports show, you can’t say it doesn’t play a part of the show. Richie McCormick?!? They need to do one or the other, you can’t pick and choose what social matters and values are important...again, particularly if your boss is Denis O Brien, who is very pally with Delaney.

It’s all or nothing, for a sports show it should really be nothing, unless it’s cheating PED’s etc. But there’s not many people/sports stars are crystal clean with no cobwebs in the attic.

ballsymchugh

I for one am looking forward to the day when it emerges that Tiger Woods, Kevin Kilbane and Dan McDonnell are shown up to be the ringleaders in a worldwide cock fighting ring.

Joe will need an oxygen tank near him that day.

Tell me how

TomasMacR wrote: »

But they from time to time. Which is why they really should STFU, They do over-politicise some things for a sports show, you can’t say it doesn’t play a part of the show. Richie McCormick?!? They need to do one or the other, you can’t pick and choose what social matters and values are important...again, particularly if your boss is Denis O Brien, who is very pally with Delaney.

It’s all or nothing, for a sports show it should really be nothing, unless it’s cheating PED’s etc. But there’s not many people/sports stars are crystal clean with no cobwebs in the attic.

But Richie consistently behaves as Richie does. Some things he gets annoyed about, more he doesn't seem to mention but is anyone any different in real life?

I don't know anyone who behaves in a particular way across all topics and scenarios. Some things annoy people more than others ,wfor whatever reason.

As for suggesting that the fact that they work for a station Denis O'Brien owns means that they should not express an opinion is not really realistic again is it. How many people turn down jobs because the boss has a different world view to what they have? That isn't going to pay the mortgage.

DEFTLEFTHAND

In fairness to them in this day and age moral posturing and grand standing is vital to upkeep a good media profile.

I'm sure when they're off air and down the pub with each other they act and behave like normal men.

BPKS

BPKS wrote: »

Yet OTB have no issue having a pundit who crashed his car in the middle of the day (near a school) and legged it cos he was over the limit.

This is the problem with being as moralistic and self righteous as the OTB lads are - you need to be consistent.

Its the A La Carte judgemental nature of the boys that puts me off.

Wasn't aware of that, thanks.

Funnily enough, I can handle Molloy's self righteousness a lot more than Gilroy's, who comes across as a serious pain in the backside.

TomasMacR

Tell me how wrote: »

But Richie consistently behaves as Richie does. Some things he gets annoyed about, more he doesn't seem to mention but is anyone any different in real life?

I don't know anyone who behaves in a particular way across all topics and scenarios. Some things annoy people more than others ,wfor whatever reason.

Agreed on the Richie stuff, near impossible to restrain your values when it is basically a one way conversation for the most part on radio. He is almost 100% consistent in his agenda and is an exceptionally sh*t at what he does, has zero tolerance for anyone who challenges his own very narrow minded view and is thoroughly unlikeable for all of this. Seems like a shameless brown nose Uncle Tom also.

Tell me how wrote: »

As for suggesting that the fact that they work for a station Denis O'Brien owns means that they should not express an opinion is not really realistic again is it. How many people turn down jobs because the boss has a different world view to what they have? That isn't going to pay the mortgage.

This is a very poor point you are citing. Quoting Denis O Brien and expressing an opinion in the same sentence is laughable. He has our media censored through threats of highly expensive litigation no matter whether it is true or not and has tried do the same with our democratically elected representatives.

As for Denis O Brien being just some boss with a differing opinion to your own, it isn’t really comparable is it now? You are talking about a very corrupt individual with zero morals who has amassed a fortune through very dubious practices and then you have his employees on the airwaves telling us all how to behave and what is right and wrong. At least Ivan Yeats, who is a money hungry shameless bollocks, has the decency to remain as much on the airwaves and in public.

Tell me how

TomasMacR wrote: »

Agreed on the Richie stuff, near impossible to restrain your values when it is basically a one way conversation for the most part on radio. He is almost 100% consistent in his agenda and is an exceptionally sh*t at what he does, has zero tolerance for anyone who challenges his own very narrow minded view and is thoroughly unlikeable for all of this. Seems like a shameless brown nose Uncle Tom also.
.

How so? He is here to report sports news and provide some commentary on same? Does he not do that? How, in terms of what his job is is he exceptionally sh*t in ways that are different to other sports news reporters.
I'm not a big fan of his style but there's quite a difference between that and saying someone is exceptionally sh*t at writing and reading copy on active sports news like it requires exceptional talent.

TomasMacR wrote: »

This is a very poor point you are citing. Quoting Denis O Brien and expressing an opinion in the same sentence is laughable. He has our media censored through threats of highly expensive litigation no matter whether it is true or not and has tried do the same with our democratically elected representatives.

As for Denis O Brien being just some boss with a differing opinion to your own, it isn’t really comparable is it now? You are talking about a very corrupt individual with zero morals who has amassed a fortune through very dubious practices and then you have his employees on the airwaves telling us all how to behave and what is right and wrong. At least Ivan Yeats, who is a money hungry shameless bollocks, has the decency to remain as much on the airwaves and in public.

In what way, in general sports broadcasting would you expect presenters to comment on their boss?

As for suggesting on one hand O'Brien has amassed his fortune while some of his employees are on air telling us how to behave, that again is seeing their behaviour in a way you think A, they are telling us how to behave and B, they are doing so at O'Brien's behest.

In all cases, as with sports broadcasters and regular presenters of all shows on all stations, those presenters will have an opinion, you cannot suggest that each presenter has been instructed to communicate a particular message.

TomasMacR

Tell me how wrote: »

How so? He is here to report sports news and provide some commentary on same? Does he not do that? How, in terms of what his job is is he exceptionally sh*t in ways that are different to other sports news reporters.
I'm not a big fan of his style but there's quite a difference between that and saying someone is exceptionally sh*t at writing and reading copy on active sports news like it requires exceptional talent.

You are right, it's a matter of opinion, I find him very opinionated about matters outside of sport. I also find he is quite condescending to those that are not in there as long as he is but kisses hole when its the converse. Seems to be quite a bullying culture in there...just a vibe I get. Totally subjective I admit.

Tell me how wrote: »

In what way, in general sports broadcasting would you expect presenters to comment on their boss?

As for suggesting on one hand O'Brien has amassed his fortune while some of his employees are on air telling us how to behave, that again is seeing their behaviour in a way you think A, they are telling us how to behave and B, they are doing so at O'Brien's behest.

No, they just shouldn't work for a man who hates free speech so much if they believe in it so much with regards to values, morals and ethics...and particularly as journalists.

I never suggested O'Brien would tell them how to tell us how to behave, I am talking about his past versus the knights in shining armour he has on the airwaves. It's like having a well paid spokesperson of some cancer charity being paid by Marlboro. It's very hypocritical.

If O'Brien was instructing his DJ's on what to say we'd have them giving us the A-Z on how to profit from corruption and how to get the ball rolling with gauging orders when a whiff of investigation comes about.

All that said, I believe journalism is a very tough gig to make any kind of a living out of...I would probably do the same, but I would be a lot less vocal about morals and ethics, just stick to the sport FFS.

Tell me how wrote: »

In all cases, as with sports broadcasters and regular presenters of all shows on all stations, those presenters will have an opinion, you cannot suggest that each presenter has been instructed to communicate a particular message.

I agree, see my previous post.

Tell me how

TomasMacR wrote: »

You are right, it's a matter of opinion, I find him very opinionated about matters outside of sport. I also find he is quite condescending to those that are not in there as long as he is but kisses hole when its the converse. Seems to be quite a bullying culture in there...just a vibe I get. Totally subjective I admit.

Not sure about the bullying suggestion. Do reckon some people definitely aren't best pals but I don't see where it crosses a line like if someone is being attacked personally.

TomasMacR wrote: »

No, they just shouldn't work for a man who hates free speech so much if they believe in it so much with regards to values, morals and ethics...and particularly as journalists.

I don't think any of us would be working if we were to always stay away from people who are not morally upstanding and who may own the company or be our boss.

TomasMacR wrote: »

I never suggested O'Brien would tell them how to tell us how to behave, I am talking about his past versus the knights in shining armour he has on the airwaves. It's like having a well paid spokesperson of some cancer charity being paid by Marlboro. It's very hypocritical.

It's the suggestions that the guys are knights in shining armour is where I think this doesn't hold water. I see that as being people getting affronted because people on the radio have a different opinion to them. NT is the same station where Yates works, Paul Williams used to work and Peter Casey got some sort of a voice. There is no attempt her to project a narrative.

TomasMacR wrote: »

All that said, I believe journalism is a very tough gig to make any kind of a living out of...I would probably do the same, but I would be a lot less vocal about morals and ethics, just stick to the sport FFS.

I can understand your point but personally I prefer the consideration of the human experience in relation to sport (we disagree whether that constitutes preaching on morals and ethics). I think we hear enough bland "at the end of the day" type conversations on sport and so I enjoy when this goes deeper.

I think some of the best interviews have been when people have been discussing their experience in depth and not just playing/training/winning/losing.

jeremyj1968

TomasMacR wrote: »

I understand your point, they can’t have it both ways.

But this is the core point. They do the same on a number of issues:

- They are all nodding their heads when Declan Lynch says how much of a scourge gambling is in Irish society, then have the Boyle Sports shill in setting out his stall after the break.
- They gave out yards about Israel Falau the other night for airing his Mormon views on homosexuality, yet NT constantly preach to us about how we should respect other people's religions and beliefs.
- They give out about people not supporting women's sports and preaching to us that people should do more to cover women's sports when they barely cover them at all. (There's no money in covering it after all).
- They guffaw with all of their rugby pals when they regale us with their old war stories about putting their studs through some forwards head at the bottom of a scrum, and then tut tut about how savage MMA is.

There are endless examples. And you will find that all the core presenting team are pretty much on the same page with regard to all of these same contradictions, so it's not just coincidental, there are commercial (sponsor) reasons as to why they treat different people/sports/sexes/colours etc in different ways. That's why I barely listen any more. Well, except for this week, as their FAI coverage was good.

Tell me how

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

But this is the core point. They do the same on a number of issues:

- They are all nodding their heads when Declan Lynch says how much of a scourge gambling is in Irish society, then have the Boyle Sports shill in setting out his stall after the break.
- They gave out yards about Israel Falau the other night for airing his Mormon views on homosexuality, yet NT constantly preach to us about how we should respect other people's religions and beliefs.
- They give out about people not supporting women's sports and preaching to us that people should do more to cover women's sports when they barely cover them at all. (There's no money in covering it after all).
- They guffaw with all of their rugby pals when they regale us with their old war stories about putting their studs through some forwards head at the bottom of a scrum, and then tut tut about how savage MMA is.

There are endless examples. And you will find that all the core presenting team are pretty much on the same page with regard to all of these same contradictions, so it's not just coincidental, there are commercial (sponsor) reasons as to why they treat different people/sports/sexes/colours etc in different ways. That's why I barely listen any more. Well, except for this week, as their FAI coverage was good.

Your interpretation of what they are doing above is subjective. I agree with the betting guy as I think it's insulting to expect people to listen to him like he is an objective commentator.

But I think you are getting outraged about the other items for the sake of it.
I've listened a lot over the last few years and can't say I recall them tut tutting about MMA at any point, maybe when the guy died after a fight which was poorly catered for in terms of medical support they would have pointed out that adequate cover should have been provided for such a brutal (physically) sport.
The vast majority of sports print media and radio/tv commentators are on the same page in terms of Folau.
They do cover women's sports (or women in sport) and regularly have women guests on Saturday panel. Including last Saturday.

Ahwell

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

But this is the core point. They do the same on a number of issues:


- They gave out yards about Israel Falau the other night for airing his Mormon views on homosexuality, yet NT constantly preach to us about how we should respect other people's religions and beliefs.

Hang on. In various other threads you've been giving out yards about there not being enough of an outcry about when a Muslim cleric said homosexuality is a sin. Now you are upset because there is too much of an outcry because Israel Falau said "Those that are living in Sin will end up in Hell unless you repent, Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him."...and you are accusing them of trying to have it both ways?

MD1990

Who is is going to listen to the head of a bookmaker giving betting tips lol.

jeremyj1968

Well what did ye all think of Giles last night. Seems like OTB were affording the opportunity to defend himself. Nathan was basically leading him through the evidence in the same way that he leads him through the football matches (and the names of the players). Thought Giles answered the questions well enough and sounded genuine though.

redbuck

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Well what did ye all think of Giles last night. Seems like OTB were affording the opportunity to defend himself. Nathan was basically leading him through the evidence in the same way that he leads him through the football matches (and the names of the players). Thought Giles answered the questions well enough and sounded genuine though.

I think John was being genuine.

Ol' Donie

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Well what did ye all think of Giles last night. Seems like OTB were affording the opportunity to defend himself. Nathan was basically leading him through the evidence in the same way that he leads him through the football matches (and the names of the players). Thought Giles answered the questions well enough and sounded genuine though.

Is this about the FAI crap?

I'd like to hear what John has to say about it, will give it a listen.

jeremyj1968

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Is this about the FAI crap? I'd like to hear what John has to say about it, will give it a listen.

Most of that show was pretty much John speaking in defence of himself and the John Giles Foundation, but it is worth a listen. It's up on the youtube channel if you want to see him as well.

Say Your Number

I remember hearing John went bankrupt in the seventies and paid back every penny he owed, I'd believe his version of events before a lot of people.

Tell me how

They are doing the bank holiday normal thing of playback tonight. They played part of the roadshow with Michael Cheika again.
I had heard part of it before which was mostly Cheika talking which I found very good. Tonight, the bit I heard was Shane Horgan and Malcolm O'Kelly.

Found this part mostly annoying because of the number of times that they referred to him as 'Checks', I know it's a sign that they were close but it's one thing that grinds my gears about sports stars who refer to each other by nicknames after they have finished playing.

Was like listening to two college students.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

They are doing the bank holiday normal thing of playback tonight. They played part of the roadshow with Michael Cheika again.
I had heard part of it before which was mostly Cheika talking which I found very good. Tonight, the bit I heard was Shane Horgan and Malcolm O'Kelly.

Found this part mostly annoying because of the number of times that they referred to him as 'Checks', I know it's a sign that they were close but it's one thing that grinds my gears about sports stars who refer to each other by nicknames after they have finished playing.

Was like listening to two college students.

A negative comment? Is that you TMH?

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

A negative comment? Is that you TMH?

As I've said, there's things I don't like about the show.
But, what I detest, is persistent negativity...

jeremyj1968

Tell me how wrote: »

They are doing the bank holiday normal thing of playback tonight. They played part of the roadshow with Michael Cheika again.
I had heard part of it before which was mostly Cheika talking which I found very good. Tonight, the bit I heard was Shane Horgan and Malcolm O'Kelly.

I'm pretty sure it was Shane Jennings, as I did not switch it off. I thought it was a good insight. Loved all the stuff with Cheika, probably one of the more interesting guests that they had on.

editor's note: Given that TMH had gone all negative I decided that I should also change tack so as to balance things up.

Tell me how

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was Shane Jennings, as I did not switch it off. I thought it was a good insight. Loved all the stuff with Cheika, probably one of the more interesting guests that they had on.

editor's note: Given that TMH had gone all negative I decided that I should also change tack so as to balance things up.

I thought the part where Cheika was speaking about his life and career was excellent, but, I find many of the roadshows just have the same people telling the same stories.

Keith Wood must be sick of appearing at them at this point. They seem to have a full audience at most of them so obviously there's interest in them.

jeremyj1968

Have to say, I didn't like him at the start, but I'm starting to enjoy Kenny Cunningham on the show. He is probably the only one that is himself on the show. He's quite funny as well.

OldMrBrennan83

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

Have to say, I didn't like him at the start, but I'm starting to enjoy Kenny Cunningham on the show. He is probably the only one that is himself on the show. He's quite funny as well.

Does he still say the word football 3 or 4 times a sentence? Him abd Andrews were brutal at it.

Tell me how

OldMrBrennan83 wrote: »

Does he still say the word football 3 or 4 times a sentence? Him abd Andrews were brutal at it.

He definitely can't say the word club with preceding it with the word football anyway.

He still lives in London doesn't he? I wonder does he came back to Ireland once a week or so purely for the show?

Kilbane is really only an occasional presenter now it seems, Kenny is probably on more often than him.