Second Captains

Chalk McHugh

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Nobody here even has less interest in the GAA than Early. They’re basically a soccer podcast but it’s been better lately since the English premier league went on hold.

Talking about Ewan McKenna.

Chalk McHugh

Chalk McHugh wrote: »

Talking about Ewan McKenna.

Ah, sorry. He’s not really a sports journalist at all

He’s right more often than not, he’s just as subtle as getting hit by the 25A.

Raisins

Players chair days remind me on those times I was a kid and I’d find out we’re having fish for dinner.

Jim Root

Raisins wrote: »

Players chair days remind me on those times I was a kid and I’d find out we’re having fish for dinner.

Should we do a pool to guess how soon Millwall are mentioned?

Arghus

"There's twitter and there's real life."

Felt like a low-key burn from their Geordie correspondent yesterday.

Say Your Number

Interesting how Newcastle fans seem to have no moral qualms about the new ownership.

ongarite

The Kenny Cunningham IT Crowd sound board was really good. One of the best ones I've heard in a while.

Cienciano

I've loads of stuff in my podcast feed at the moment. I normally listen at work and while driving, I can't do that now. I've 40 podcasts in a playlist that normally has about 6. Is the Megan Campbell one worth listening to or just delete it?

Arghus

Say Your Number wrote: »

Interesting how Newcastle fans seem to have no moral qualms about the new ownership.

I think your man hit the nail on the head. Most fans don't care as long as the team is successful. Mike Ashley could have got away with being a totally weird prick if the team had been successful

Personally, I would be disgusted to see the club bought out by Saudi Arabia, but I don't think that would be the majority view.

Ken didn't seem to just get this. Most football fans don't think too deeply about how how club owners make their money and really start too if things aren't happening on the pitch.

thenightman

I was laughing at the Geordie eejit trying rationalise the support for the takeover of his club by a murderous rogue nation for PR purposes. I know Mike Ashley is a bit of a wanker and all, but ****ing hell. Just moronic, like the majority of football fans I suppose.

Squires has a great cartoon today on the same subject, well worth checking out!

Brock Turnpike

Arghus wrote: »

I think your man hit the nail on the head. Most fans don't care as long as the team is successful. Mike Ashley could have got away with being a totally weird prick if the team had been successful

Personally, I would be disgusted to see the club bought out by Saudi Arabia, but I don't think that would be the majority view.

Ken didn't seem to just get this. Most football fans don't think too deeply about how how club owners make their money and really start too if things aren't happening on the pitch.

That's because most fans are idiots. Blinded by the notion that the club they support somehow means more than everything else in life.

krtek

I think the Newcastle guy did very well on the show. I think he is far from an "eejit", and he certainly wasn't trying to downplay the negatives of the Saudis at any time. He dealt with the lads easily enough.

I thought the tone of Eoin's questions was quite poor from the outset. They had the air of if you are happy with Ashley leaving, you must be endorsing the actions of the Saudis. Ashley leaving and the Saudis possibly taking over are two individual events. You don't need to "square" these two things as Eoin suggested. I thought he was almost a little disrespectful in that regard. Eoin actually says on the first part of the show, the guy coming on is "quite representative of the fan you are talking about". They had already decided on what they thought about him before they talked to him.

I think the Newcastle lad saw the lads pretty quickly for what they are, people who follow football on TV and twitter. Ken questioned how a fan who went day in day out with his father could still identify with the club now. He spoke like he knows what this feeling is like, but the thing is, he doesn't. Time passes, a club is "not what it was before" all the time.

The football news / gossip the lads discuss isn't the same thing as supporting your local club your whole life, "in real life". That entails a lot more than just football. Ken is a very good football journalist, but he's still always the guy who watches the big games from England off the telly.

lawred2

Do you want vinegar with those salty chips?

Weird that it took you two years to post and it was to take exception to the lads on second captains..

Arghus

krtek wrote: »

I think the Newcastle guy did very well on the show. I think he is far from an "eejit", and he certainly wasn't trying to downplay the negatives of the Saudis at any time. He dealt with the lads easily enough.

I thought the tone of Eoin's questions was quite poor from the outset. They had the air of if you are happy with Ashley leaving, you must be endorsing the actions of the Saudis. Ashley leaving and the Saudis possibly taking over are two individual events. You don't need to "square" these two things as Eoin suggested. I thought he was almost a little disrespectful in that regard. Eoin actually says on the first part of the show, the guy coming on is "quite representative of the fan you are talking about". They had already decided on what they thought about him before they talked to him.

I think the Newcastle lad saw the lads pretty quickly for what they are, people who follow football on TV and twitter. Ken questioned how a fan who went day in day out with his father could still identify with the club now. He spoke like he knows what this feeling is like, but the thing is, he doesn't. Time passes, a club is "not what it was before" all the time.

The football news / gossip the lads discuss isn't the same thing as supporting your local club your whole life, "in real life". That entails a lot more than just football. Ken is a very good football journalist, but he's still always the guy who watches the big games from England off the telly.

I think he did well in some ways and gently showed that maybe the guys had certain preconceived notions that were easy to hold while you are removed from the actual supporting of your local club.

But at the same time, I thought there was a general reluctance from him to really grapple with what it meant for the club to be owned by the Saudi's. I felt resistance on his part every time the guys wanted to steer the the conversation in that direction. I found it interesting that, even though it was a small moment, he referred to the Saudi's "alleged" crimes. It felt instinctively defensive.

I think your criticism of Ken being removed from the reality as lived by most Newcastle fans is true, but I also think the two boys' point - while being a bit obvious - about the morality of who actually owns the club and what does that mean for what the club actually represents is truer and more fundamental still. Ken might be a bit smug about the subject in some ways, but I don't think he's wrong.

And as for Eoin as saying that the guy was representative of "the type of fan you are talking about." I don't really have a problem with that - he ticked the boxes. He was a lifelong Newcastle fan, delighted that Ashley was gone and cautiously optimistic about the proposed takeover. Eoin was being dismissive there? Maybe, but it could just as easily be you projecting.

Still Ill

Haven't listened to today's podcast, but I think sometimes they would record the actual interview before they record the introduction to the show, so he could be saying he's representative of that view after having spoken to him already.

Aidric

Arghus wrote: »

I think he did well in some ways and gently showed that maybe the guys had certain preconceived notions that were easy to hold while you are removed from the actual supporting of your local club.

That was the crux of the interview. Eoin and Ken were representing the view of neutral fans without accepting the blind loyalty of fans of the team being acquired. The interviewee made a credible comparison with Man City. Where do you draw the line in terms of acceptable owners?

Football has long been drawing to Middle East money, Qatar being awarded the WC the most obvious example. Both the Spanish and Italian super cups have been held in Saudi Arabia last year. Commercial realities trump all else.

krtek

Arghus wrote: »

I think he did well in some ways and gently showed that maybe the guys had certain preconceived notions that were easy to hold while you are removed from the actual supporting of your local club.

But at the same time, I thought there was a general reluctance from him to really grapple with what it meant for the club to be owned by the Saudi's. I felt resistance on his part every time the guys wanted to steer the the conversation in that direction. I found it interesting that, even though it was a small moment, he referred to the Saudi's "alleged" crimes. It felt instinctively defensive.

I think your criticism of Ken being removed from the reality as lived by most Newcastle fans is true, but I also think the two boys' point - while being a bit obvious - about the morality of who actually owns the club and what does that mean for what the club actually represents is truer and more fundamental still. Ken might be a bit smug about the subject in some ways, but I don't think he's wrong.

And as for Eoin as saying that the guy was representative of "the type of fan you are talking about." I don't really have a problem with that - he ticked the boxes. He was a lifelong Newcastle fan, delighted that Ashley was gone and cautiously optimistic about the proposed takeover. Maybe you are inferring that Eoin was being dismissive there. Maybe, but it could just as easily be you projecting.

I noted the use of "alleged" too, but I would give people the benefit of the doubt when discussing crimes on any broadcast. I guess journalists / podcasters unconsciously talk like that at this stage. If it was defensive, I think he just wanted to win an argument on a podcast rather than condone the actions of the the Saudi state.

I thought the guy seemed reasonable enough, and didn't necessarily disagree with anything Ken said either. I got the impression that he would be open to discussing the ownership of the Saudis, and what it means for the club if the conversation wasn't framed as it was.

I'd be interested in hearing other conversations the guy has had recently to see if he has been forthcoming with his opinions on Saudi ownership.

krtek

lawred2 wrote: »

Do you want vinegar with those salty chips?

Weird that it took you two years to post and it was take exception to the lads on second captains..

Is it?

lawred2

krtek wrote: »

Is it?

It is a bit yeah...

Raoul

lawred2 wrote: »

It is a bit yeah...

Bit of a strange time to post after two years but what's your problem? . I thought the post was reasonably fair. No need for the aggressiveness.

Also, I am the same as some of the other guys, loads of my regular podcasts don't get listened to these days, Bill Simmons, Bill Burr, one or two others. I need to pick and choose podcasts to listen to. I haven't actually listened to the last two Player's Chairs. Are they worth listening to?

Seamy Fitz

Raoul wrote: »

Bit of a strange time to post after two years but what's your problem? . I thought the post was reasonably fair. No need for the aggressiveness.

Also, I am the same as some of the other guys, loads of my regular podcasts don't get listened to these days, Bill Simmons, Bill Burr, one or two others. I need to pick and choose podcasts to listen to. I haven't actually listened to the last two Player's Chairs. Are they worth listening to?

eh...no

lawred2

Raoul wrote: »

Bit of a strange time to post after two years but what's your problem? . I thought the post was reasonably fair. No need for the aggressiveness.

Also, I am the same as some of the other guys, loads of my regular podcasts don't get listened to these days, Bill Simmons, Bill Burr, one or two others. I need to pick and choose podcasts to listen to. I haven't actually listened to the last two Player's Chairs. Are they worth listening to?

Aggressiveness... Really? Ok. That's what constitutes aggressive in your book then fair enough.

Was just drawn to the "saw lads for what they are" passive aggressive commentary. Found it odd that a piece about a Saudi takeover of Newcastle United aroused such ire from a dormant poster that a maiden post was needed after two years...

NeftDaslari

I’m particularly enjoying Covid Ken

Raoul

lawred2 wrote: »

Aggressiveness... Really? Ok. That's what constitutes aggressive in your book then fair enough.

Was just drawn to the "saw lads for what they are" passive aggressive commentary. Found it odd that a piece about a Saudi takeover of Newcastle United aroused such ire from a dormant poster that a maiden post was needed after two years...

:D I guess you can lose tone a quite a bit by text. I didn't really mean you were frothing at the mouth or anything. So maybe aggressive was a bit overly strong.

Chalk McHugh

Enjoyed the Newcastle takeover chatter. Its a hard one to call. If Newcastle was my team would i boycott the club now that the Saudis are running it? No doubting the Saudis are a disgusting regime and i'd guess a small percentage of fans may stay away from attending games while they are there. A very small percentage perhaps. Most fans though just want a bit of success and wouldn't bat an eyelid as to how their club gets there. Unfortunately morals and football/sporting success dont go hand in hand. Finding those who wont allow their principles to be skewed in the search for success is an increasingly difficult task in todays professional mega bucks sporting industry.

Beersmith

Newcastle was very reasonable. Especially his comments on welcome to sports in the uk and the west and twitter is not real life.

bigron2109

Question folks. Went to sign up there through Pateron, and I noticed when I was going to sign up, that it said it would atomically renew again on the 1st of May. Does that mean I will get charged now, and on the first of May?

Arghus

That rugby story sounds as fishy as fck.

I could have happily listened to Ken rant about anti-vaxxers for another couple of hours.

I too remember Weekly World News. Bat Boy, that was a deep cut.

Brock Turnpike

bigron2109 wrote: »

Question folks. Went to sign up there through Pateron, and I noticed when I was going to sign up, that it said it would atomically renew again on the 1st of May. Does that mean I will get charged now, and on the first of May?

Going by the fact that Eoin normally mentions signing up at the start of the month as being the best time to sign up, I would imagine so.

bigron2109

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Going by the fact that Eoin normally mentions signing up at the start of the month as being the best time to sign up, I would imagine so.

Thanks for that. Ill hold out till the first of the month so. Appreciate the reply.