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

Aidric

Tell me how wrote: »

What do you think they should have done, given that the had a contract in place to promote it?

You answered your own question.

Jayesdiem

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Both Richie and Joe were very critical of the new sanctions in the newsround this evening and called out many of the hypocrisies in it.

I feel they are being hypocritical themselves, if true. The government will deliver what proves to be popular amongst the population. OTB, on several occasions, have championed these draconian measures. They’ve been happy to see sport degenerate into the unattended parody it’s become so when the government give them more of what they originally wanted, they shouldn’t be complaining, though for sport’s sake, I’m glad they are.

irs

Micheal Martin is the fall guy in this and is safe to criticise unlike "Leo & Simon".

Tell me how

generalgerry wrote: »

Ah come on. You think that it was acceptable that they suspended their moralising while the money was rolling in, and then almost as soon as it was over they had Ciara Kelly in to tell us how bad an idea it was that it went ahead.

It's a bit like the fox eating all the occupants of the henhouse and then giving out to the farmer for having not better protected it. :pac:

Aidric wrote: »

You answered your own question.

All the other entities, newspapers, other shows etc covered it as well.
Do you think any entity would, or did, turn down money or annoy a sponsor in such a manner?

It's just a convenient stick to be used here against them. Same old, same old.

generalgerry

Tell me how wrote: »

All the other entities, newspapers, other shows etc covered it as well. Do you think any entity would, or did, turn down money or annoy a sponsor in such a manner?

Yeah but just because other people are hypocritical, doesn't mean that they are all forgiven because of the weight of numbers of similar hypocrites.

If they are choosing to be activists and hold strong positions on certain political issues, then it is fair game to point out when the show that employs them makes choices for commercial reasons that are in complete conflict to the views that they have been ramming down our throats promoting. I mean, they either believe in what they advocate for or they are just selling out, which is it?

Tell me how

generalgerry wrote: »

Yeah but just because other people are hypocritical, doesn't mean that they are all forgiven because of the weight of numbers of similar hypocrites.

If they are choosing to be activists and hold strong positions on certain political issues, then it is fair game to point out when the show that employs them makes choices for commercial reasons that are in complete conflict to the views that they have been ramming down our throats promoting. I mean, they either believe in what they advocate for or they are just selling out, which is it?

Why are they being held to a different standard then others? And spare me they've asked for it with their virtue signalling. They have covered topics and expressed opinions largely in line with how most of their listeners discuss and view things. And generally not really much different than how staff on other shows be it Sunday Sport, Game On or Second Captains except given what OTB produce, they can devote more time to the interesting topics outside the lines (which some here seem to hate).

People complaining about them doing so lost their sh*t over a throw away comment that darts was an inferior sport. While also probably repeatedly using Roy Keane's prawn sandwich brigade phrase. Both cases being just an example of someone with a platform expressing an opinion.

A lot of the judgement, seems to me, to come down to a frustration that these guys talk about sports in the same way most of the rest of us do, but the difference is that it is their full time job to do it.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

A lot of the judgement, seems to me, to come down to a frustration that these guys talk about sports in the same way most of the rest of us do

I can’t agree with this bit and I doubt you even believe what you’ve said yourself. At no point in my life have I ever conversed with a friend, or friends, about sport through the lens of addressing social or community issues. We talk about the latest big signing, the controversial red card, the messed up VAR decision or nostalgia of the past. We never, and I mean NEVER, discuss Muslim head dresses, taking a knee, Rapinoe’s latest activism or what a bad role model Lance is to children. Neither do we seek to include women in our chats to signal to some tokenistic brand of equality. I hasten to add, this is when things called “pubs” and “restaurants” existed so I’m not quite sure what shape our conversations will take going forward.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

I can’t agree with this bit and I doubt you even believe what you’ve said yourself. At no point in my life have I ever conversed with a friend, or friends, about sport through the lens of addressing social or community issues. We talk about the latest big signing, the controversial red card, the messed up VAR decision or nostalgia of the past. We never, and I mean NEVER, discuss Muslim head dresses, taking a knee, Rapinoe’s latest activism or what a bad role model Lance is to children. Neither do we seek to include women in our chats to signal to some tokenistic brand of equality. I hasten to add, this is when things called “pubs” and “restaurants” existed so I’m not quite sure what shape our conversations will take going forward.

You and I are different. And I say that with zero judgement whatsoever. I am always interested in the conversation around the fringes of sport as well as the analysis. In fact, I find the analysis can get very repetitive very quickly.

I used to find programs like Sky's 'The Debate' were just too shallow when it was a good opportunity or experts in the game to explore the psyche which exists amongst players and managers but more and more analysis now is too processed so as not to inflame or be used as a stick to beat a team or a player with and I find that boring.

Same reason why I enjoy Paul Kimmages writing as it is never simply about the score and I enjoyed the Chicago Bulls documentary 'The Last Dance' because so much of it was about the personalities and their motivations and challenges beyond just hitting a basket.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Same reason why I enjoy Paul Kimmages writing as it is never simply about the score and I enjoyed the Chicago Bulls documentary 'The Last Dance' because so much of it was about the personalities and their motivations and challenges beyond just hitting a basket.

Your examples are very different to what goes on on that show in terms of hot button social issues that bear no relevance to the sport itself. I believe 90% of people would also be interested in Michael Jordan’s psyche and I’m no different. Michael Jordan’s motives however are worlds away from what I listed above (ie Muslim head dresses, ill-tempered pink-haired women who are angry with the world, the performance of individuals not as athletes, but as role models etc etc etc). Do you not think these issues are mundane and irrelevant compared to the motives that drove Jordan to five NBA titles? I do.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

You and I are different. And I say that with zero judgement whatsoever. I am always interested in the conversation around the fringes of sport as well as the analysis. In fact, I find the analysis can get very repetitive very quickly.

I used to find programs like Sky's 'The Debate' were just too shallow when it was a good opportunity or experts in the game to explore the psyche which exists amongst players and managers but more and more analysis now is too processed so as not to inflame or be used as a stick to beat a team or a player with and I find that boring.

Same reason why I enjoy Paul Kimmages writing as it is never simply about the score and I enjoyed the Chicago Bulls documentary 'The Last Dance' because so much of it was about the personalities and their motivations and challenges beyond just hitting a basket.

You're nothing if not consistent, I'll give you that. Fair play.

To quote Kimmage, 'I may be an asshole, but I'm a consistent asshole!'

The problem with OTB is that they have shown no consistency on key issues such as Cheltenham, and when you are moralising one minute and then silent the next it leaves you with egg on your face. You can't run with the fox and the hounds, and by taking the cash from the likes of PP, you are leaving yourself very exposed.

OTB was made to look silly and weak, and lacking in integrity and credibility, by their own inconsistency.

I think what you are trying to suggest by the above is that you like to take a deeper look at sport which is great. I think that's how OTB positioned itself in the past - and it's the market Second Captains has cornered now - but there has been a clear editorial shift away from that content - or maybe it's just the sheer amount of content they now have to produce - of late and there is far to much inane analysis on it now.

And I hate to break it to you, but Paul Kimmage may have done some amazing journalism and done the sport of cycling an incredible service in the past, but he has allowed his ego to run away with itself. Other than his irregular and very hit and miss Q and A's, I can't remember the last interesting piece of his that I read. I'm not sure how any paper would have him on staff given all the baggage he carries and the very patchy nature of his work.

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

And I hate to break it to you, but Paul Kimmage may have done some amazing journalism and done the sport of cycling an incredible service in the past, but he has allowed his ego to run away with itself. Other than his irregular and very hit and miss Q and A's, I can't remember the last interesting piece of his that I read. I'm not sure how any paper would have him on staff given all the baggage he carries and the very patchy nature of his work.

Yeah I agree with this. I find Kimmage a bit of a one trick pony these days. Seems to be volume over quality. Even the style he has has stayed stuck. Transcribes pages and pages of his interviews word for word. He seemed fresh once upon a time, not now.

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

I always feel like it should come with a TLDR summary at the end!

CatFromHue

I much prefer Kimmage's Q&A style of interviews, you get exactly what the interviewee is saying as supposed to what the interviewer thinks they're saying.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Michael Jordan’s motives however are worlds away from what I listed above (ie Muslim head dresses, ill-tempered pink-haired women who are angry with the world, the performance of individuals not as athletes, but as role models etc etc etc). Do you not think these issues are mundane and irrelevant compared to the motives that drove Jordan to five NBA titles? I do.

I actually do think a lot of people are interested in the mental side that athletes have to deal with and how they experience and are affected by real world events. I've mentioned before about Keith Earls interview with Joe Molloy and how they spsoke about the effect mental health can have on your game and your game on your mental health and it was very interesting.

And whether it be muslim head dresses or whatever, the things which can play on a persons mind and impact their preparation and performance are interesting to hear about. For me anyway and I suspect I am not the only one.

I read about a student track athlete some years ago who suffered with had self harmed. They wanted to hide the scars and so wore long sleeved training tops but this was in a very hot climate and their body overheated and it impact their training and their performances reflected this. The comment about ill-tempered pink haired women who are angry with the world indicates an unwillingness to consider what it is that is making them angry. I am interested in that.

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with OTB is that they have shown no consistency on key issues such as Cheltenham, and when you are moralising one minute and then silent the next it leaves you with egg on your face. You can't run with the fox and the hounds, and by taking the cash from the likes of PP, you are leaving yourself very exposed.

OTB was made to look silly and weak, and lacking in integrity and credibility, by their own inconsistency.

I think what you are trying to suggest by the above is that you like to take a deeper look at sport which is great. I think that's how OTB positioned itself in the past - and it's the market Second Captains has cornered now - but there has been a clear editorial shift away from that content - or maybe it's just the sheer amount of content they now have to produce - of late and there is far to much inane analysis on it now.

And I hate to break it to you, but Paul Kimmage may have done some amazing journalism and done the sport of cycling an incredible service in the past, but he has allowed his ego to run away with itself. Other than his irregular and very hit and miss Q and A's, I can't remember the last interesting piece of his that I read. I'm not sure how any paper would have him on staff given all the baggage he carries and the very patchy nature of his work.

Yes, I do like the deeper look (or outside the box look) on sports topics. When I heard Joey Carberry had been injured, my immediate thought was how difficult this must be mentally given the frustration of the last few months and the concern about their sport given the impact loss of games and gate receipts will have on it. I'd be much more interested in an indepth conversation about that than the stock 'It must be frustrating, all he can do is get treatment and hopefully come back fit and strong' stock answers.

I think the view on OTB's Cheltenham coverage is possibly because you disagree with them expressing any personal views on any topic.

The idea that a group or individual have to behave in the exact same manner on every topic is not how real life works or if it is, it is precisely because someone is just adopting a position or applying their fixed view on something which is both illogical and boring.

Even with this in mind, what we are talking about here is the stance the show took during the Cheltenham festival, (which did go ahead) and during which they had a sponsorship deal with Paddy Power (I think).
I am 100% of the opinion that if they had announced that they had taken a moral position not to cover it and returned their fee for the sponsorship deal that there would have been very vocal views that they were after pulling the most snowflake of all moves ever. They covered it, pretty unenthusiastically if I recall and even on the last day of it, John Duggan was questioning the sense in it having gone ahead.

I see it as fulflling their obligation more so than abandoning any moral position they have supposedly taken.

That deal would have been agreed and negotiated last year at some point and given that, and given that the festival did indeed go ahead, what do you suggest they should have done?

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Yeah I agree with this. I find Kimmage a bit of a one trick pony these days. Seems to be volume over quality. Even the style he has has stayed stuck. Transcribes pages and pages of his interviews word for word. He seemed fresh once upon a time, not now.

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

PK: Do you think blah blah?
XYZ: blah blah blah

I always feel like it should come with a TLDR summary at the end!

I much rather Kimmages inquisitive style which showcase warts and all of a situation or person than the bland focus pieces that are little more than a PR exercise for the athlete or team.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

I actually do think a lot of people are interested in the mental side that athletes have to deal with and how they experience and are affected by real world events. I've mentioned before about Keith Earls interview with Joe Molloy and how they spsoke about the effect mental health can have on your game and your game on your mental health and it was very interesting.

And whether it be muslim head dresses or whatever, the things which can play on a persons mind and impact their preparation and performance are interesting to hear about. For me anyway and I suspect I am not the only one.

I read about a student track athlete some years ago who suffered with had self harmed. They wanted to hide the scars and so wore long sleeved training tops but this was in a very hot climate and their body overheated and it impact their training and their performances reflected this. The comment about ill-tempered pink haired women who are angry with the world indicates an unwillingness to consider what it is that is making them angry. I am interested in that.



Yes, I do like the deeper look (or outside the box look) on sports topics. When I heard Joey Carberry had been injured, my immediate thought was how difficult this must be mentally given the frustration of the last few months and the concern about their sport given the impact loss of games and gate receipts will have on it. I'd be much more interested in an indepth conversation about that than the stock 'It must be frustrating, all he can do is get treatment and hopefully come back fit and strong' stock answers.

I think the view on OTB's Cheltenham coverage is possibly because you disagree with them expressing any personal views on any topic.

The idea that a group or individual have to behave in the exact same manner on every topic is not how real life works or if it is, it is precisely because someone is just adopting a position or applying their fixed view on something which is both illogical and boring.

Even with this in mind, what we are talking about here is the stance the show took during the Cheltenham festival, (which did go ahead) and during which they had a sponsorship deal with Paddy Power (I think).
I am 100% of the opinion that if they had announced that they had taken a moral position not to cover it and returned their fee for the sponsorship deal that there would have been very vocal views that they were after pulling the most snowflake of all moves ever. They covered it, pretty unenthusiastically if I recall and even on the last day of it, John Duggan was questioning the sense in it having gone ahead.

I see it as fulflling their obligation more so than abandoning any moral position they have supposedly taken.

That deal would have been agreed and negotiated last year at some point and given that, and given that the festival did indeed go ahead, what do you suggest they should have done?

If they are going to take firm stances on moral issues - which their presenters do, and I am not suggesting they are wrong in that regard - then don't take money from the likes of Paddy Power in the first place. Simple. You are getting into bed with a rotten industry, and they've already been embarrassed twice now - the Leon Blanche 'betting tips' farrago and Cheltenham. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

I think it might be best to let that one die on the vine as you have your opinion and I have mine. And who's to say who us right. It's been done to death now.

For the record, I have no issue with presenters airing their views on certain issues, but I would much rather it done through the medium of clever interviewing and strategic questioning of guests rather than some of the see through grandstanding that can happen on OTB. As I said before, there are far more subtle and less arsey ways of doing it than some of the lads on OTB.

As a matter of interest, is there anything about OTB that you would be critical of? I'd like to think I can find a balance between being positive and critical when it's warranted. I'm not suggesting anything underhand or anything like that, but as someone who seems to have a great interest in the show I would have thought that you would occasionally find something that you might not like and consider posting on here about it...

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

If they are going to take firm stances on moral issues - which their presenters do, and I am not suggesting they are wrong in that regard - then don't take money from the likes of Paddy Power in the first place. Simple. You are getting into bed with a rotten industry, and they've already been embarrassed twice now - the Leon Blanche 'betting tips' farrago and Cheltenham. As I said, you can't have it both ways.

I think it might be best to let that one die on the vine as you have your opinion and I have mine. And who's to say who us right. It's been done to death now.

For the record, I have no issue with presenters airing their views on certain issues, but I would much rather it done through the medium of clever interviewing and strategic questioning of guests rather than some of the see through grandstanding that can happen on OTB. As I said before, there are far more subtle and less arsey ways of doing it than some of the lads on OTB.

As a matter of interest, is there anything about OTB that you would be critical of? I'm not suggesting anything underhand or anything like that, but as someone who seems to have a great interest in the show I would have thought that you would occasionally find something that you might not like and consider posting on here about...

Agree with a preference they stayed away from gambling money, and I messaged the show once when the tipster came on to say I turned it off whenever he appeared.

I would be of the view that the stances we do hear are simply expressions of views as and when they are appropriate to bring up rather than bona fide positions taken by the show but, that is a difference of opinion.

CatFromHue

CatFromHue wrote: »

I much prefer Kimmage's Q&A style of interviews, you get exactly what the interviewee is saying as supposed to what the interviewer thinks they're saying.

You get for too much of what the interviewee is saying, including lots of inane stuff. Any editor worth his salt would chop them to pieces and weed out the rubbish.

There is always something interesting in there, but it's a slog to find it.

Kimmage also has a shocking habit of just patching together loads of quotes from other sources to make his pieces. It's like he's just stopped writing and has lost his own voice.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree with a preference they stayed away from gambling money, and I messaged the show once when the tipster came on to say I turned it off whenever he appeared.

I would be of the view that the stances we do hear are simply expressions of views as and when they are appropriate to bring up rather than bona fide positions taken by the show but, that is a difference of opinion.

For the record, I have never suggested they are some sort of editorial stance taken by the show. You've taken me up incorrectly there.

I sent the same type of message to the show when the tipster came on, and used to genuinely just turn it off whenever he did appear.

Ahwell

Deleted User wrote: »

For the record, I have no issue with presenters airing their views on certain issues, but I would much rather it done through the medium of clever interviewing and strategic questioning of guests rather than some of the see through grandstanding that can happen on OTB. As I said before, there are far more subtle and less arsey ways of doing it than some of the lads on OTB.

Yes, but that's precisely what Newstalk want - "opinion-led radio". They want their presenters to be very opinionated. It's a way of differentiating Newstalk from RTE, where presenters don't tend to give their opinions.

None of the OTB team's opinions are that out of the ordinary. It's fairly mainstream stuff. Yet all we get here is mainstream presenter on a mainstream radio show expresses a mainstream opinion...shock!...horror!

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

Yes, but that's precisely what Newstalk want - "opinion-led radio". They want their presenters to be very opinionated. It's a way of differentiating Newstalk from RTE, where presenters don't tend to give their opinions.

None of the OTB team's opinions are that out of the ordinary. It's fairly mainstream stuff. Yet all we get here is mainstream presenter on a mainstream radio show expresses a mainstream opinion...shock!...horror!

They do shouty radio from 7am right through Drivetime. I would have thought that the 7-10 slot and weekend slot is when people are looking for something a bit lighter, but maybe there is a concerted effort by station bosses to do the same with OTB. I hope not as sports radio is so much better when it's not shouty, opinion and ego led.

Anyway, we're veering off track...are you going to answer my question about ever bring critical of the show? Do you ever see faults or do you just choose to see the positive?

Ahwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyway, we're veering off track...are you going to answer my question about ever bring critical of the show? Do you ever see faults or do you just choose to see the positive?

What? When did you ask me this?

Ahwell

Ahwell wrote: »

What? When did you ask me this?

Seven posts back. Not having a go, just curious.

Ahwell

Deleted User wrote: »

Seven posts back. Not having a go, just curious.

I think you are mixing me up with Tell me how, I haven't posted in here since last week.

generalgerry

Tell me how wrote: »

They have covered topics and expressed opinions largely in line with how most of their listeners discuss and view things.

But there is no evidence for this. No group of lads have the same types of conversations about sport that these guys do. You're telling me that at the bar you have overhead a group of lads talking about how terrible it is how underfunded the female game is, or how it was terrible that some players didn't tie their shoelaces with the multicoloured shoelaces for pride, or how disgraceful it was that Burnley had a "white lives matter" flag flying above the stadium, or about how it's terrible that no premiership footballer has come out as being gay.

Like I said before, there is a competition in modern media to prove yourself as the most woke. All I want them to do is back the f**k off with the preachy liberal brainwashing that they go on it.

Ahwell

generalgerry wrote: »

You're telling me that at the bar you have overhead a group of lads talking about how terrible it is how underfunded the female game is, or how it was terrible that some players didn't tie their shoelaces with the multicoloured shoelaces for pride, or how disgraceful it was that Burnley had a "white lives matter" flag flying above the stadium, or about how it's terrible that no premiership footballer has come out as being gay.

I've watched, heard and read all those topics covered on TV sports shows, other sports radio shows, sports podcasts, Youtube sport channels and newspaper sports sections .i.e., the mainstream sports media. You're out of step with the mainstream and you don't like it. Tough, it's not going to change for your benefit.

Tell me how

generalgerry wrote: »

But there is no evidence for this. No group of lads have the same types of conversations about sport that these guys do. You're telling me that at the bar you have overhead a group of lads talking about how terrible it is how underfunded the female game is, or how it was terrible that some players didn't tie their shoelaces with the multicoloured shoelaces for pride, or how disgraceful it was that Burnley had a "white lives matter" flag flying above the stadium, or about how it's terrible that no premiership footballer has come out as being gay.

Like I said before, there is a competition in modern media to prove yourself as the most woke. All I want them to do is back the f**k off with the preachy liberal brainwashing that they go on it.

There is a whole world of people outside the circles you are familiar with generalgerry. That much is very obvious.

Modern media is more and more reflective of the audience, because it has to be.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a whole world of people outside the circles you are familiar with generalgerry. That much is very obvious.

Modern media is more and more reflective of the audience, because it has to be.

If you hang around boards or Reddit, which I unfortunately do, you could be forgiven for thinking the entire world is woke, leftist BLM supporters. It is isn’t though and a good majority of people have contempt for that segment of society and resent it being part of daily dialogue, never mind sport. I’m serious when I say this - it’s an absolute scourge on society and sport, which was always supposed to remain politics free.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

If you hang around boards or Reddit, which I unfortunately do, you could be forgiven for thinking the entire world is woke, leftist BLM supporters. It is isn’t though and a good majority of people have contempt for that segment of society and resent it being part of daily dialogue, never mind sport. I’m serious when I say this - it’s an absolute scourge on society and sport, which was always supposed to remain politics free.

Yeah? Says who?

Sport and politics have historically been intertwined and thankfully frequently a platform which bridged a divide and allowed people to find a place where they could express themselves. Long may that continue.

And of course it has also been used to divide and isolate largely through the actions of some fan bases, in some sports, which is in itself an interesting topic why it happens in soccer but not in rugby.

Tell me how

Jayesdiem wrote: »

If you hang around boards or Reddit, which I unfortunately do, you could be forgiven for thinking the entire world is woke, leftist BLM supporters. It is isn’t though and a good majority of people have contempt for that segment of society and resent it being part of daily dialogue, never mind sport. I’m serious when I say this - it’s an absolute scourge on society and sport, which was always supposed to remain politics free.

Further evidence of the interest people have in topical items and real world events being discussed in the context of sport. Not just Stans comments, but the reaction to the comments Richie made all across social media.

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1296043177540018177

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Further evidence of the interest people have in topical items and real world events being discussed in the context of sport. Not just Stans comments, but the reaction to the comments Richie made all across social media.

https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/status/1296043177540018177

Just because Collymore points it out doesn’t mean it holds any weight. If anything he’s cut from the same roll of SJW cloth the OTB lads were tailored from because he has, and always has had, an agenda. He’ll be the type emboldened by the events of 2020. The Sadlier comments were relevant to the teams playing on the night but weren’t really of any relevance to events on the pitch which is what he is paid to do. That Collymore highlights them doesn’t legitimise them in my eyes. I prefer the Giles’, Souness’ and Dunphys of this world. Richie can be easily described with the W word.