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

Ol' Donie

IRE60 wrote: »

Every contract of employment has to have a notice period.

12 weeks, though. Seems like a long time, if it's just a legal requirement. Considering the rest of them were 4 weeks.

ballsymchugh

armchair fusilier wrote: »

I kind of feel the same about Ger & Co. using the OTB facebook and The Second Captains twitter accounts. The only reason they are doing so is because of the large number of followers both accounts has, but they had nothing to do with creating them or building up that following. Both should have been closed and new ones opened.

the twitter account is different, although the facebook page is the same, minus all the old stuff.

Imhof Tank

uRbaN wrote: »

Yours is more of a moral argument. It makes no sense business wise from Newstalks perspective where its all about building and maintaining market share.

What about listener sentiment?

Their particular approach to "building and maintaining market share" is totally bogus and is alienating many erstwhile loyal listeners which will definitely impact on them in a commercial sense.

They are not just losing casual listeners - they are making enemies and driving people into the arms of Game On and wherever "the lads" end up.

armchair fusilier

ballsymchugh wrote: »

the twitter account is different, although the facebook page is the same, minus all the old stuff.

They just changed the name of the twitter account to OffTheBallNT, still the same account though.

https://twitter.com/OffTheBallNT

...and I just had quick look at facebook - the old stuff is still there.

IRE60

Ol' Donie wrote: »

12 weeks, though. Seems like a long time, if it's just a legal requirement. Considering the rest of them were 4 weeks.

McDevitt signed that contract and it has a John Hancock from Newstalk as well to make it binding. So it's, again, nobodys decision but his own.

He can be back on air 4th June if he wants - the other lads are available for work now. Dont forget either - he's not out of pocket for the 3 months.

C

gnfnrhead

soc160 wrote: »

They probably deserve credit for the way they left, they made it quite controversial and have recieved a fair amount of media attention, probably raising their stock a good bit and making the more lucrative.

I dont know of too many employers who would want people who issue ultimatums and walk out if their stupid demands are not met. They seemingly had a massively inflated sense of self worth.

ballsymchugh

armchair fusilier wrote: »

They just changed the name of the twitter account to OffTheBallNT, still the same account though.

https://twitter.com/OffTheBallNT

...and I just had quick look at facebook - the old stuff is still there.

so it is.

the 5 set up a new 2nd captains account alright, and a new soundcloud page.

heybaby

gnfnrhead wrote: »

I dont know of too many employers who would want people who issue ultimatums and walk out if their stupid demands are not met. They seemingly had a massively inflated sense of self worth.

Has there been an official statement from any of the ex OTB lads to confirm that they left becasue they didnt get a schedule change ? Im not aware that there has been.

IRE60

No – five seasoned media professionals made one ‘bland’ statement. The rest was left up to Newstalk – if the stations version wasn't true – they have had plenty of time to address that.


tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock,

dulpit

Would the terms of gardening leave prohibit the lads from making podcasts?

armchair fusilier

heybaby wrote: »

Has there been an official statement from any of the ex OTB lads to confirm that they left becasue they didnt get a schedule change ? Im not aware that there has been.

IRE60 wrote: »

No – five seasoned media professionals made one ‘bland’ statement. The rest was left up to Newstalk – if the stations version wasn't true – they have had plenty of time to address that.


tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock,

They did actually give it as the reason...

Over the last 18 months we have been in discussions with Newstalk about ways to develop our programme. Unfortunately there are fundamental differences of opinion between management and ourselves about the show’s future potential and its ability to grow an audience at an earlier time.

http://twishort.com/IGXcc

IRE60

armchair fusilier wrote: »

They did actually give it as the reason...

yea - as I said "one ‘bland’ statement"

Ol' Donie

IRE60 wrote: »

McDevitt signed that contract and it has a John Hancock from Newstalk as well to make it binding. So it's, again, nobodys decision but his own.

He can be back on air 4th June if he wants - the other lads are available for work now. Dont forget either - he's not out of pocket for the 3 months.

C

I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, i'm just wondering why newstalk would agree to 12 weeks if they had no intention of letting him near a mic for that time. Thats all.

Also, i thought i read somewhere that they couldnt go into any detail because of the terms of their gardening leave.

IRE60

Ol' Donie wrote: »

I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, i'm just wondering why newstalk would agree to 12 weeks if they had no intention of letting him near a mic for that time. Thats all.

Also, i thought i read somewhere that they couldnt go into any detail because of the terms of their gardening leave.

In the world of finance - more especially analysts and researchers 3/6/9 months would not be unusual. I worked with a Marketing Director in the UK who was on GL for a year!

As a broadcaster, it might no be a unusual.

styron

Ol' Donie wrote: »

I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, i'm just wondering why newstalk would agree to 12 weeks if they had no intention of letting him near a mic for that time. Thats all.

Also, i thought i read somewhere that they couldnt go into any detail because of the terms of their gardening leave.

It's a restraint of trade/restrictive covenant clause to prevent anyone easily 'jump ship' to a rival firm bringing insider knowledge or in radio's case most of their audience with them eg. "join me tomorrow on 2FM!".

It's entirely in newstalk's interest that McDevitt & Co. serve out their time in the lowest public profile possible. To have them on air serving out notice and allow them suddenly jump would lose Newstalk the maximum audience - so pay them to potter about with confidentiality clauses included to minimise the damage and hope old media habits die easy in the meanwhile, with fewer marking time for their (possible) return.

Ol' Donie

Makes sense, i suppose! Now, what would stop the other lads talking about their new plans at the moment? If they are to turn up on a different station, when should we start hearing about it?

soc160

uRbaN wrote: »

Yours is more of a moral argument. It makes no sense business wise from Newstalks perspective where its all about building and maintaining market share.

Ye I agree with that. Too much sentiment here for the lads, they don't seem to understand the business side of it. I like everyone here loved the show but I dont feel the lads had any ownership of it. No company is going to stop something succesful like that out of sentiment. The lads knew this when they left, I cant imagine any of them wanting to shut down twitter accounts or re-design websites just for them. The lads made the show as good as it could be but the show was only as good as it's contributors and guest's, many of whom are still involved in the show.

Say Your Number

Its strange that Newstalk are running ads for Premier League Live given that they have their own sports show on at the same time.

Christ, Ger Gilroy's jaded level of smugness about English soccer fans is getting tedious and rather annoying :mad:

We get it Ger, it's not as intellectually stimulating as American sports

armchair fusilier

soc160 wrote: »

they don't seem to understand the business side of it.

That's just a bit patronising now. Business-wise this show is dead in the water. Using the old Facebook and Twitter accounts isn't going to change that.The brand "Off the Ball" is now irreversibly associated with Eoin Mcdevitt, Ken Early and Ciaran Murphy. Just sticking Ger Gilroy in there and pretending that it is still the same show, in a "don't mention the war" kind of way, just isn't going to work. Especially if Eoin, Ken and Murph pop up on a different station to present another sports programme in roughly the same time slot.

Strongbow10

armchair fusilier wrote: »

That's just a bit patronising now. Business-wise this show is dead in the water. Using the old Facebook and Twitter accounts isn't going to change that.The brand "Off the Ball" is now irreversibly associated with Eoin Mcdevitt, Ken Early and Ciaran Murphy. Just sticking Ger Gilroy in there and pretending that it is still the same show, in a "don't mention the war" kind of way, just isn't going to work. Especially if Eoin, Ken and Murph pop up on a different station to present another sports programme in roughly the same time slot.

the show did not have enough listeners to justify that argument.

its a show with a cult following. Add to the fact that for every 2 who loved the show, 1 person hated the smugness of Ken Early.

I listened to both shows, whilst I was never a huge fan of Ken, I didn't exactly understand the hate either.

Ger Gilroy does a decent job in my opinion, the lads got a little bit above their station and didn't have the listnership to back up their demands. Its a niche show, with a niche listnership.

armchair fusilier

Strongbow10 wrote: »

its a show with a cult following. Add to the fact that for every 2 who loved the show, 1 person hated the smugness of Ken Early.

That's not a fact, it's a opinion and not one I would share.

It having had a bigger audience than any other radio station at that time of day, including RTE Radio 1 who dominate every other time slot, would suggest that it had more than just a cult following.

soc160

armchair fusilier wrote: »

That's just a bit patronising now. Business-wise this show is dead in the water. Using the old Facebook and Twitter accounts isn't going to change that.The brand "Off the Ball" is now irreversibly associated with Eoin Mcdevitt, Ken Early and Ciaran Murphy. Just sticking Ger Gilroy in there and pretending that it is still the same show, in a "don't mention the war" kind of way, just isn't going to work. Especially if Eoin, Ken and Murph pop up on a different station to present another sports programme in roughly the same time slot.

Doesn't matter if the listnership drops a bit, the way they make money is sponsorship, and Gillette are still sponsoring the show and running new stings on the show, so it's not dead in a business sense.

What do you want them to do? They addressed the lads leaving, they are hardly going to keep going on about it, Sky didn't when Keys and Gray left.

Imhof Tank

soc160 wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the listnership drops a bit, the way they make money is sponsorship, and Gillette are still sponsoring the show and running new stings on the show, so it's not dead in a business sense.

What do you want them to do? They addressed the lads leaving, they are hardly going to keep going on about it, Sky didn't when Keys and Gray left.

Are you trolling with the Keys Gray comparison?? They were reviled characters, hounded out in disgrace.

As for the sponsors, there hasnt been time yet for the impact of what happened to filter through to advertisers. If the next JNLR figures are bad - as in more than "a bit" of a drop - there will be business consequences.

armchair fusilier

soc160 wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the listnership drops a bit, the way they make money is sponsorship, and Gillette are still sponsoring the show and running new stings on the show, so it's not dead in a business sense.

I don't think that's true. The lads where always fairly dismissive of the Gillette sponsorship, it was never prominent on air and only ever really featured on the shows website page. So I doubt it was for very much money. Assuming that's true and that the bulk of revenue comes from advertising than a big fall in the JNLR figures(which I'm fully expecting) will result result in a big fall in revenue.

It's not really a case of what I want them to do, I just don't think what they are doing now will work for the reasons I gave. Maybe a complete rebranding, change the name and format might be the way to go.

ballsymchugh

armchair fusilier wrote: »

I don't think that's true. The lads where always fairly dismissive of the Gillette sponsorship, it was never prominent on air and only ever really featured on the shows website page. So I doubt it was for very much money. Assuming that's true and that the bulk of revenue comes from advertising than a big fall in the JNLR figures(which I'm fully expecting) will result result in a big fall in revenue.

It's not really a case of what I want them to do, I just don't think what they are doing now will work for the reasons I gave. Maybe a complete rebranding, change the name and format might be the way to go.

they were very sarcastic towards all forms of sponsorship, the let's party thing being case and point where they'd read out the prepared script like an amazon review. they frequently did the same with gilette. the did make the point of saying that gilette were a quality company around the time of henry's handball and tiger woods philandering.
the sponsors wouldn't have cared though, they got their product mentioned.

armchair fusilier

ballsymchugh wrote: »

they were very sarcastic towards all forms of sponsorship, the let's party thing being case and point where they'd read out the prepared script like an amazon review. they frequently did the same with gilette. the did make the point of saying that gilette were a quality company around the time of henry's handball and tiger woods philandering.
the sponsors wouldn't have cared though, they got their product mentioned.

But Gillette was never part of the imaging of the show - no jingles..etc, in fact it was hardly mentioned at all. In any case, the amount of money they would get from any sponsorship deal would by determined by the JNLR figures in the same way advertising revenue would.

Ol' Donie

ballsymchugh wrote: »

they were very sarcastic towards all forms of sponsorship, the let's party thing being case and point where they'd read out the prepared script like an amazon review. they frequently did the same with gilette. the did make the point of saying that gilette were a quality company around the time of henry's handball and tiger woods philandering.
the sponsors wouldn't have cared though, they got their product mentioned.

I used to love the way they acted the mickey with the sponsors. That calls for a carlsberg etc.
Dead right the sponsors loved it too.

I remember a few years ago there was an ad for a clothes shop - i believe it may have been called Fishers of Newtownmountkennedy (if thats right it proves their messing really helped the advertisers) - with some over enthusiastic woman telling us their special offers. The lads kept playing the "Ladies..." bit...

Very much a you had to be there episode, but it was hilarious.

I also remember them going on about who among them had their Barbara Striesand tickets after an ad break.

ballsymchugh

armchair fusilier wrote: »

But Gillette was never part of the imaging of the show - no jingles..etc, it fact it was hardly mentioned at all. In any case, the amount of money they would get from any sponsorship deal would by determined by the JNLR figures in the same way advertising revenue would.

your post is putting doubt in my head, but i'm pretty sure gilette was mentioned during the show in jingles. it may have been one of those things that you block out after a while, like that feckin taxi ad.

soc160

armchair fusilier wrote: »

I don't think that's true. The lads where always fairly dismissive of the Gillette sponsorship, it was never prominent on air and only ever really featured on the shows website page. So I doubt it was for very much money. Assuming that's true and that the bulk of revenue comes from advertising than a big fall in the JNLR figures(which I'm fully expecting) will result result in a big fall in revenue.

It's not really a case of what I want them to do, I just don't think what they are doing now will work for the reasons I gave. Maybe a complete rebranding, change the name and format might be the way to go.

Don't think what is true exactly? How do you think the station makes money, its through advertising and sponsorship. If the listnership falls below 31,000 id assume there would be a renegotiation of the contract. We won't know the full extent of the fall out for another 6 months though the way the JNLR's work.

armchair fusilier wrote: »

But Gillette was never part of the imaging of the show - no jingles..etc, it fact it was hardly mentioned at all. In any case, the amount of money they would get from any sponsorship deal would by determined by the JNLR figures in the same way advertising revenue would.

Gillette have a sting in and out of each ad break, name was mentioned, they sponsored the road shows too.