The Pat Kenny Show

constitutionus

have to admit.

this was a class peice. very enjoyable without being maudlin in a "jaysus werent things better then" kinda way.

good song to end on too.

The Master.

This show seems a bit stale and bland. I never thought id say it but ill miss Tom Dunne.He brought a bit of colour to his show and although i thought Tom was too nice at times he was still listenable.
This Kenny fella is just grey grey grey.

This has left me with a void between 10 am when live drive finishes and 1.30pm when Moncrieff is on and then the big man.

Amirani

Being a chess nerd, I'm loving this piece on the Bobby Fischer vs Boris Spassky match.

Fionn Davenport is generally great though IMO.

Lapin

I'm enjoying it too but the background music is a bit too intrusive.

constitutionus

oh i cant stand fionn davenport.

seems to come from the savage school of broadcasting.

but that was a good peice on the chess tournament, which is a subject i cant believe im actually posting about !

Loafing Oaf

Just realised there was no George Byrne this morning.:( Who can I rely on for fine movie discernment now?

Vunderground

No George Byrne...yay


And no MLOD ...double yay :)

More Music

Judgement Day wrote: »

Can't stand PK, never could, and if this thread is anything to go by the new show must be woeful.

What a ridiculous statement.

People don't usually take the time to compliment, but are very quick to be negative. So you normally just see all the negative comments.

PK on Radio 1 drew around 330,000 listeners. 229,980 are obviously quite happy with him. 20 people on here are not and if somebody visits here for a look it will skew their opinion.

Pat and Sean O'Rourke are both excellent radio presenters.

Pat got crucified here (everywhere actually) for his high RTE salary which was for TV and radio work. His last published RTE salary was €585,000.

People said he would never get a fraction of that in the "real" commercial world. He's getting €400,000 from Newstalk and is free to work elsewhere for TV. So he could appear on TV3 or possibly even on RTE TV and will get paid separately for that work.

Also, whining about this business of RTE/Newstalk paying his production company and then Pat pays himself a salary. There's nothing wrong it. Nearly all major presenters in the UK and Ireland as well as top flight footballers do it.

I agree it's tough on Tom Dunne and his 55,000 listeners but presenters get the chop all the time. It's a way of life in radio.

At any rate, Pat isn't instantly going to bring 300,000 listeners with him and keep them there in a week. Newstalk are looking at 12 months plus, and have signed Pat on a 5 year deal.

alaimacerc

More Music wrote: »

PK on Radio 1 drew around 330,000 listeners. 229,980 are obviously quite happy with him. 20 people on here are not and if somebody visits here for a look it will skew their opinion.

Or are tuning in out of morbid curiosity, who knows. Or are traumatised by getting some actual current affairs in their previous fluff-heavy diet on "Today". If someone reading this thread has their opinion "skewed" in the direction of reality, back away from the Cult of Pat Sheeples, then all to the good. I have no such high expectations, though.

Also, whining about this business of RTE/Newstalk paying his production company and then Pat pays himself a salary. There's nothing wrong it. Nearly all major presenters in the UK and Ireland as well as top flight footballers do it.

I wasn't aware that this was a common practice in soccer. There's a Wayne Rooney Production Company? It's producing... eh, what exactly? That's not what you'd call a strong argument for the legitimacy of the practice, is it? If people are for all purposes employees, then they should be taxed as employees; that's supposed to be a pretty basic principle of taxation. (I realize that "principles" are frequently dealt with on a "cafeteria" basis in such discourse.)

It's a tax fiddle, and the people that end up cross-subsidising it are entirely entitled to complain about it. More especially if it's now being done in the private sector, rather than robbing public sector Peter to pay public sector Paul, when it was just a matter of effectively moving funds from the "RTE" column to the "revenue commissioners" one. Though certainly they'd be better served exercising their democratic sanction to shut such abuses down entirely. Yes, PK isn't the only culprit. But y'know, guess who this thread is about?

meeeeh

alaimacerc wrote: »

Or are tuning in out of morbid curiosity, who knows. Or are traumatised by getting some actual current affairs in their previous fluff-heavy diet on "Today". If someone reading this thread has their opinion "skewed" in the direction of reality, back away from the Cult of Pat Sheeples, then all to the good. I have no such high expectations, though.


I wasn't aware that this was a common practice in soccer. There's a Wayne Rooney Production Company? It's producing... eh, what exactly? That's not what you'd call a strong argument for the legitimacy of the practice, is it? If people are for all purposes employees, then they should be taxed as employees; that's supposed to be a pretty basic principle of taxation. (I realize that "principles" are frequently dealt with on a "cafeteria" basis in such discourse.)

It's a tax fiddle, and the people that end up cross-subsidising it are entirely entitled to complain about it. More especially if it's now being done in the private sector, rather than robbing public sector Peter to pay public sector Paul, when it was just a matter of effectively moving funds from the "RTE" column to the "revenue commissioners" one. Though certainly they'd be better served exercising their democratic sanction to shut such abuses down entirely. Yes, PK isn't the only culprit. But y'know, guess who this thread is about?

it's cheaper for the RTE too. There are no redundancies, no sick leave, no maternity leave, no holiday pay. People on contracts are well paid but their employment can be terminated very quickly.

alaimacerc

mike65 wrote: »

They are not louder - they are at the loudest permissible for more of the time, compression. Same on TV and its why ad breaks wake up those slumbering in front of Midsomer Murders/Morse repeats etc!

They're louder. You're correct insofar as you say this is a far from unique thing, and is indeed common practice across the board.

Loudness is a cognitive factor. If it seems louder, then guess what? It is. Yes, there are regulations specifying maximum measured loudness; the art of it keeping measured loudness within the limit, while maxing out perceptual loudness. This isn't just about editing out the audibly "quiet" parts, but about DRC, which is pushing the whole "volume curve" upward.

Why do you think the same phenomenon (essentially) in recorded music is referred to as "loudness wars"?

alaimacerc

meeeeh wrote: »

it's cheaper for the RTE too.

That depends on the extent to which the tax fiddl-- eh, "arrangement" is "priced into" the other terms of the contract.

There are no redundancies, no sick leave, no maternity leave, no holiday pay.

Diddums. We ain't exactly talking about people on ZHCs on the breadline being financially ravished by amazon here, are we. OK, so it's an additional marginal risk/cost the "employee" is taking on themself, but clearly one these people at the (self-described!) "top" can afford to absorb it, and are net beneficiaries thereof.

People on contracts are well paid but their employment can be terminated very quickly.

That depends entirely on the terms of the contract. In the case of the "big earners" of RTE they seem to have been on fixed term contracts, meaning that it'd actually be very expensive to get rid of them while they had term to run. Witness the conspicuous foot-dragging over Pat's contract "renegotiations". Not about the money, m'arse. Not that I necessarily think RTE management would have had the cajones to unilaterally cut PK's pay, but the strong implication, without having the benefit of getting my lawyer to pour over the Ts&Cs of his "commercially sensitive" contract, was that they weren't in a position to do so.

alaimacerc

Onthe3rdDay wrote: »

I would assume every mid morning current affairs show in Ireland uses pre-recorded material at some point. Especally when the person you want to interview isn't available between 10 and 12. There's no fast rule that you have to say "I spoke earlier..." if you don't want to but in my opinion it's disrespectful to listeners.

That's exactly my point. I'm not saying there should be an actual "canned phrase" they have to intone as a legal disclaimer, or some such... But they shouldn't be representing "on tape" as being "live", if that's what they're doing. i.e. if the presenter (and I'm speaking in general here, since I have no idea what the prevalence from one show to the next is) says "after the break I'll be talking to Talking O'Head about One of Those Topics", and he's actually pressing the button on a taped interview, that's a porkie pie.

Sometimes it's very obvious it's a taped interview, in that it's a case of "you don't eat a pig that good all at once", and the interview is split up into several segments. That's cheesy in its own way too, but at least it's making some kind of virtue of necessity.

meeeeh

alaimacerc wrote: »

That depends on the extent to which the tax fiddl-- eh, "arrangement" is "priced into" the other terms of the contract.


Diddums. We ain't exactly talking about people on ZHCs on the breadline being financially ravished by amazon here, are we. OK, so it's an additional marginal risk/cost the "employee" is taking on themself, but clearly one these people at the (self-described!) "top" can afford to absorb it, and are net beneficiaries thereof.


That depends entirely on the terms of the contract. In the case of the "big earners" of RTE they seem to have been on fixed term contracts, meaning that it'd actually be very expensive to get rid of them while they had term to run. Witness the conspicuous foot-dragging over Pat's contract "renegotiations". Not about the money, m'arse. Not that I necessarily think RTE management would have had the cajones to unilaterally cut PK's pay, but the strong implication, without having the benefit of getting my lawyer to pour over the Ts&Cs of his "commercially sensitive" contract, was that they weren't in a position to do so.

So if I'm reading this correctly there should be different rules for well paid people. The contracts are normal thing in broadcasting because a lot of the stuff is flavor of the month and it is easier to get rid of people. The better you are the better therms you'll be able to get. It's free market.

alaimacerc

meeeeh wrote: »

So if I'm reading this correctly there should be different rules for well paid people.

I think the essential problem is that there are different rules for well-paid people, if by "rules", you mean "the actual terms of the contract, and who is advantaged or disadvantaged thereby". The conceptual error here is putting "self-employed contractors" into the same rhetorical category, regardless of whether the contracts are devices for the company to shaft them, or for them to be shafting the rest of us.

The contracts are normal thing in broadcasting because a lot of the stuff is flavor of the month and it is easier to get rid of people. The better you are the better therms you'll be able to get. It's free market.

It's not a functioning competitive market, so you can spare us the Invisible Hand stuff before you get too much of a head of steam up. Where's that Fry and Laurie "either you believe in free markets or you don't!" vidclip when one needs it...

Onthe3rdDay

More Music wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement.

People don't usually take the time to compliment, but are very quick to be negative. So you normally just see all the negative comments.

PK on Radio 1 drew around 330,000 listeners. 229,980 are obviously quite happy with him. 20 people on here are not and if somebody visits here for a look it will skew their opinion.

Pat and Sean O'Rourke are both excellent radio presenters.

Pat got crucified here (everywhere actually) for his high RTE salary which was for TV and radio work. His last published RTE salary was €585,000.

People said he would never get a fraction of that in the "real" commercial world. He's getting €400,000 from Newstalk and is free to work elsewhere for TV. So he could appear on TV3 or possibly even on RTE TV and will get paid separately for that work.

Also, whining about this business of RTE/Newstalk paying his production company and then Pat pays himself a salary. There's nothing wrong it. Nearly all major presenters in the UK and Ireland as well as top flight footballers do it.

I agree it's tough on Tom Dunne and his 55,000 listeners but presenters get the chop all the time. It's a way of life in radio.

At any rate, Pat isn't instantly going to bring 300,000 listeners with him and keep them there in a week. Newstalk are looking at 12 months plus, and have signed Pat on a 5 year deal.

Negative comments are more likely, but I've never come across anyone who's actually said that they want to watch or Listen to Pat because it's Pat Kenny(no offence to Pat) The same could be said for a lot of RTE so called stars, people tune in to the station or the show (The Late Late for example)

I know loads of people that would tune into Graham Norton on a Friday Night because It's Graham Norton that's on.

Pat is on a sizeable sum in Newstalk but there's a different agenda at that station. It's not run to make a profit. If Denis O Brien gets bored in the Morning it'll be off air by lunchtime.

The Off The Ball lads would be an example of this, If they were making money for the station they'd have had a stronger position but It's likely no programme on Newstalk covers it's costs at this time.

Pat will be given a year or perhaps two on the station. If the listenership figures aren't up to scratch at that stage he'll take early retirement to follow his other interests.

As for his finances you can't blame Pat if people want to give him large sums of cash for his time and effort. None of us would turn down the opportunity if it was given to us. I do have a problem however with RTE handing out silly money which makes no commercial sense.

Look at Joe Duffy, a former Communist/socialist. He's kind enough to keep his moral anguish out of the public eye

meeeeh

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think the essential problem is that there are different rules for well-paid people, if by "rules", you mean "the actual terms of the contract, and who is advantaged or disadvantaged thereby". The conceptual error here is putting "self-employed contractors" into the same rhetorical category, regardless of whether the contracts are devices for the company to shaft them, or for them to be shafting the rest of us.


It's not a functioning competitive market, so you can spare us the Invisible Hand stuff before you get too much of a head of steam up. Where's that Fry and Laurie "either you believe in free markets or you don't!" vidclip when one needs it...

I know an example of an editor who lost his position in one of the national broadcasters. Because he was an employee he was kept on the books doing one show per two weeks for the same pay. Is that what you want? As anybody who ever had a company, contracts are very useful in unpredictable environment, and broadcasting is unpredictable.

But then again you won't change your mind whatever I say because populist nonsense is just too attractive.

More Music

alaimacerc wrote: »

Or are tuning in out of morbid curiosity, who knows.

Yeah, 330,000 people are morbidly curious. I assume you just said this for a reaction.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I wasn't aware that this was a common practice in soccer. There's a Wayne Rooney Production Company? It's producing... eh, what exactly?

Lots of money for it's owner/director.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Yes, PK isn't the only culprit. But y'know, guess who this thread is about?

Which is why I didn't mention any other names. I was just educating you about a perfectly legal practice that is quite common.

This has some info about how it's done and even mentions a few names.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-2095909/How-pay-21-tax-100-000-income-child-benefit--IR35-rules-explained.html

There's also a nice picture of Fiona Bruce. It is relevant to the tax discussion!

armchair fusilier

More Music wrote: »

Pat got crucified here (everywhere actually) for his high RTE salary which was for TV and radio work. His last published RTE salary was €585,000.

People said he would never get a fraction of that in the "real" commercial world. He's getting €400,000 from Newstalk and is free to work elsewhere for TV. So he could appear on TV3 or possibly even on RTE TV and will get paid separately for that work.

This isn't a "real" commercial world-type situation. RTE could afford to pay Kenny 585,000 only because over half it's budget comes from the licence fee and Newstalk can only afford to pay him 400,000 because it is backed by Denis O'Brien's billions. It may pay for itself, but that would mean large numbers of people abandoning RTE Radio 1 - something that has never happened before. It's a risk that could only be taken by a radio station backed by a billionaire.

armchair fusilier

Pat's winning the podcast battle ....

http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/podcasts/top10podcasts.html

Inspector Dhar

I'm just gutted I didn't win the competition.

hawley

armchair fusilier wrote: »

This isn't a "real" commercial world-type situation. RTE could afford to pay Kenny 585,000 only because over half it's budget comes from the licence fee and Newstalk can only afford to pay him 400,000 because it is backed by Denis O'Brien's billions. It may pay for itself, but that would mean large numbers of people abandoning RTE Radio 1 - something that has never happened before. It's a risk that could only be taken by a radio station backed by a billionaire.

Was PK's Newstalk salary confirmed anywhere? I find it difficult to believe that he would switch for a lower salary. I would have thought that his pay is now higher than in RTE. Maybe I'm wrong about this.

vicwatson

The Aer Lingus ad has forced me back to Rte or Today fm - 20 times a show is wayyyy to annoying

armchair fusilier

hawley wrote: »

Was PK's Newstalk salary confirmed anywhere? I find it difficult to believe that he would switch for a lower salary. I would have thought that his pay is now higher than in RTE. Maybe I'm wrong about this.

RTE were publicly committed to cutting all of it's top ten earners salaries by a least 30%, Pat's was the last contract left to be negotiated.

alaimacerc

hawley wrote: »

Was PK's Newstalk salary confirmed anywhere?

Not that I've seen. There were conflicting reports, though all in the same ballpark.

I find it difficult to believe that he would switch for a lower salary. I would have thought that his pay is now higher than in RTE. Maybe I'm wrong about this.

There's the salary PK had been getting, and there's the salary that he was going to get. It would be astonishing if he were to continue to be "protected" in a way that others weren't. (OK, were less so: there's still people on big enough money there...)

But more to the point, that's what he's just just for a radio show. If and when he does some TV, that might turn a bob or two. And if he doesn't, more time on the golf course.

Ciaran

armchair fusilier wrote: »

Pat's winning the podcast battle ....

http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/podcasts/top10podcasts.html

Could be because people are listening to RTE live and Newstalk on the podcast.

armchair fusilier

Ciaran wrote: »

Could be because people are listening to RTE live and Newstalk on the podcast.

Or it could be that most people listening to Sean don't even know what a podcast is.

hawley

armchair fusilier wrote: »

RTE were publicly committed to cutting all of it's top ten earners salaries by a least 30%, Pat's was the last contract left to be negotiated.

A 30 per cent cut would mean that he would be earning about 410k with RTE but he'd still have to do Frontline so now maybe he can get pension from RTE as he has essentially retired from public service + has taken a private position much like ex-garda/army doing security.

armchair fusilier

hawley wrote: »

A 30 per cent cut would mean that he would be earning about 410k with RTE but he'd still have to do Frontline so now maybe he can get pension from RTE as he has essentially retired from public service + has taken a private position much like ex-garda/army doing security.

He's a contractor, so no pension. He has said that the offers weren't that different money-wise.

alaimacerc

More Music wrote: »

Yeah, 330,000 people are morbidly curious. I assume you just said this for a reaction.

Not at all. I'd say it's far from certain that what PK faces is "dial inertia", and his audience is inevitably going to "build" from its initial number. It's entirely possible an element of it is mere novelty. After all, isn't the total audience for SOR+PK higher than that for PK+TD? (I literally can't be bothered checking my own claim on this.) Or as one -- actually, come to think of it, the only -- dedicated Newstalk listener I know said, "Pat Kenny *and* Ivan Yates on in the morning. Going to have to find something else to listen to."

Which is why I didn't mention any other names. I was just educating you about a perfectly legal practice that is quite common.

The correct name for an attempt to deflect criticism, to the actual point at hand, to some imaginedly similar case that's plainly not, would be "whataboutery". (Some considerable presumption involved in the notion that I'm in need of "education" on such matters, much less that you're capable of providing it. Or perhaps that's being "said for a reaction", to coin a phrase.)