Second Captains

17-02-2017 09:57PM

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Except we are in the internet age and you can find any narrative out there that you want. What I find amusing about the people moaning about the lack of balance on SC's political output is that they are the kind of people who rail against political correctness. "We're all going to hell in a handcart because we're all too afraid of offending someone"..."What we need is someone to tell it like it is - someone like Trump".

Well, here we have Ken whose not afraid to tell you he thinks you're an idiot if you support Trump or a fascist if you voted for him(which he has done on twitter) and doesn't care if he offends you by calling you particularly dim if you support brexit and live in Ireland. A brave new un-pc world - I would of thought you'd be happy.

On the contrary, I've no problem with being called an idiot, especially by someone like Ken.

What I do have a problem with is the lack of nuance with anything political. "Trump is a fascist dictator". "Brexit voters are racist idiots".

I think any fully formed adult knows these are shallow university level politics. Funny how half the US and UK are now willing to vote for racist/fascist ideas all of a sudden. Would it be too much to ask for an attempt to understand why people voted that way?

Cazale · 17-02-2017 10:06PM

What sort of money would the times have been paying for the podcast? I can't imagine it was anywhere near the 25-30k that 5-6k subscribers would bring in.

Evil_g · 17-02-2017 10:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

On the contrary, I've no problem with being called an idiot, especially by someone like Ken.

What I do have a problem with is the lack of nuance with anything political. "Trump is a fascist dictator". "Brexit voters are racist idiots".

I think any fully formed adult knows these are shallow university level politics. Funny how half the US and UK are now willing to vote for racist/fascist ideas all of a sudden. Would it be too much to ask for an attempt to understand why people voted that way?

Stop stinking up this thread by preaching about "shallow university level politics" whilst suggesting they get Michael Graham on to address a "lack of nuance".

yosser hughes · 18-02-2017 12:01AM

Evil_g wrote: »

Stop stinking up this thread by preaching about "shallow university level politics" whilst suggesting they get Michael Graham on to address a "lack of nuance".

The internet has spoken. Fingers in ears, identity politics,echo chamber shyte all the way.
edit: In fact you've been given a directive. You must stop stating your opinion and at least twelve people agree that you should stop. Open and free debate is dead with numbskullery of this kind.
It's better to signal your virtue than actually, really, care.

hidinginthebush · 18-02-2017 12:02AM

CatFromHue wrote: »

considering the fiver you pay doesn't include the vat then the 4.7K would be enough to give them a good wage. That's just shy of 300K to be divided up and I'm not sure how much tax they'd pay on that. I think they're all companies so I presume it's just the 12.5% but I'm no expert in that area.

Say the 300k all goes to the second captains company (which it does), then the lads will then pay themselves a salary from the company earnings and will need to pay paye, usc and prsi on anything they pay themselves. Being directors of their own company will allow them to expense any work related cost, so they'll essentially be getting those tax free.
Yes the corporate tax rate is 12.5%, but that's taxed on the company profits (so anything left after they pay expenses, wages, pension etc). Company profits can only be spent on company stuff if you don't want to pay paye etc on it, and isn't the same as the cash you have in your own bank a/c.

corwill · 18-02-2017 12:04AM

yosser hughes wrote: »

The internet has spoken. Fingers in ears, identity politics,echo chamber shyte all the way.

Physician, heal thyself.

18-02-2017 12:09AM

Evil_g wrote: »

Stop stinking up this thread by preaching about "shallow university level politics" whilst suggesting they get Michael Graham on to address a "lack of nuance".

The Michael Graham thing was a response to a previous suggestion of who to invite on the pod to bring an alternative viewpoint.

I'll grant you that Graham is not nuanced, but then neither is Ken when it comes to politics. So by bringing on an equal but opposite viewpoint overall we might get to hear and have a more nuanced view.

yosser hughes · 18-02-2017 12:09AM

corwill wrote: »

Physician, heal thyself.

WTF are you talking about?

Say Your Number · 18-02-2017 12:16AM

I'm sick to death of this political horsesh1t constantly derailing this thread, if it's like this when there is barely any mention of politics, what will it when the political show starts.

Arghus · 18-02-2017 12:25AM

Hopefully more balanced horsesh1t right?

corwill · 18-02-2017 12:27AM

Say Your Number wrote: »

I'm sick to death of this political horsesh1t constantly derailing this thread, if it's like this when there is barely any mention of politics, what will it when the political show starts.

That's an excellent point. It'll be full to bursting with froth-mouthed, wrong-wing hate-merchants shrilling and whinging at the sight or sound of anyone marginally to the left of Pinochet. If I wanted that, I could go read all the dank looneys and 2-bob Francos over in politics.ie. I'm offski.

18-02-2017 12:52AM

corwill wrote: »

That's an excellent point. It'll be full to bursting with froth-mouthed, wrong-wing hate-merchants shrilling and whinging at the sight or sound of anyone marginally to the left of Pinochet. If I wanted that, I could go read all the dank looneys and 2-bob Francos over in politics.ie. I'm offski.

"froth-mouthed, wrong-wing hate-merchants "

Really? What part of my posts specifically are hateful or "froth-mouthed"?

corwill · 18-02-2017 01:14AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"froth-mouthed, wrong-wing hate-merchants "

Really? What part of my posts specifically are hateful or "froth-mouthed"?

Who said I was talking about you? That's quite the conclusion to jump to about yourself. You might want to reflect on that.

JuanJose · 18-02-2017 09:36AM

Say Your Number wrote: »

I'm sick to death of this political horsesh1t constantly derailing this thread, if it's like this when there is barely any mention of politics, what will it when the political show starts.

Separate thread for that pod, when it begins, might help everybody?

Running Balance · 18-02-2017 09:52AM

JuanJose wrote:

Separate thread for that pod, when it begins, might help everybody?

I think thats the point, they have had 5 mins of politics talk and people here are harping on like its been 5 hours.

I think the politics chat will be little 5 min add ons at the end of each sport pod for the time being.
Or maybe one a month like richies show..

IanOBo · 18-02-2017 10:11PM

Will someone please enlighten me as to what the 'You're Amazing' is in reference to. Must have missed that episode.

postsnthing · 18-02-2017 10:18PM

IanOBo wrote:

Will someone please enlighten me as to what the 'You're Amazing' is in reference to. Must have missed that episode.

I would tell you but I'm scared it will bring the balanced politics mob out again !

OldMrBrennan83 · 18-02-2017 10:19PM

This post has been deleted.

IanOBo · 18-02-2017 10:27PM

postsnthing wrote: »

I would tell you but I'm scared it will bring the balanced politics mob out again !

Must be that Trumpeen fella so....

Ivefoundgod · 18-02-2017 10:49PM

IanOBo wrote: »

Will someone please enlighten me as to what the 'You're Amazing' is in reference to. Must have missed that episode.

They had an American sports journalist on I think either for Serena Williams win or possibly the Super Bowl I don't remember exactly but he signed off by saying "Eoin, you're amazing".

foxtrot101 · 18-02-2017 10:58PM

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

According to Ken on twitter it will once a fortnight to begin with and then it depends on how popular it is.

OldMrBrennan83 · 18-02-2017 10:59PM

This post has been deleted.

Running Balance · 19-02-2017 12:34PM

Patww79 wrote:

This post has been deleted.

One in 12 ??

OldMrBrennan83 · 19-02-2017 12:37PM

This post has been deleted.

Cosmo Kramer · 19-02-2017 01:10PM

Cazale wrote: »

What sort of money would the times have been paying for the podcast? I can't imagine it was anywhere near the 25-30k that 5-6k subscribers would bring in.

Well someone suggested a few pages back that their company accounts showed that they'd paid themselves 90k each while the IT were fronting the show. That's 450k after all expenses for show guests, travel, studio rental etc. Some of that would have been covered by the sponsorship (was it Rabo bank?) and some would be book sales and the RTE work, but I'd say the IT must still have been putting a few hundred thousand into it, especially after they lost the sponsorship,

dulpit · 19-02-2017 08:56PM

First week done. I'm impressed, the long form interviews (Richie's thing and the rower) were excellent, and not things they'd necessarily have been able to cover in a busy sports period like now. If they continue like this then it's great value for money.

As for the whole politics thing, I'm sure the whole point will be kens opinions (no matter how divisive), which should prove to be quite entertaining. I doubt they'll be going for a hard political show, it'll be more to entertain than to inform. Kens quite opinionated, and I'm sure that's what the majority of people will want.

Just checked Patreon there, 5,233 in now. If they maintain that, that's over €300k annually. Wonder what their target is? I suppose retention rate will be interesting too though...

redbuck · 19-02-2017 08:59PM

dulpit wrote: »

Wonder what their target is? I suppose retention rate will be interesting too though...

I think they should be aiming for and retaining 10k to make it practical when you consider rent, production costs, fees for guests and if it's true they each earned about 90k each a year they wont want to take too big a hit on their personal incomes.

Lucas Hood · 19-02-2017 09:16PM

redbuck wrote: »

I think they should be aiming for and retaining 10k to make it practical when you consider rent, production costs, fees for guests and if it's true they each earned about 90k each a year they wont want to take too big a hit on their personal incomes.

That 90k probably included money from live shows and TV.

Mark Horgan has said this " We're not looking for massive numbers, because we also have live events and some sponsored events in the works."

OldMrBrennan83 · 19-02-2017 09:19PM

This post has been deleted.

Cienciano · 20-02-2017 12:35PM

Say Your Number wrote: »

I'm sick to death of this political horsesh1t constantly derailing this thread, if it's like this when there is barely any mention of politics, what will it when the political show starts.

The internet needs more talk of Donald Trump, immigration and Muslims. Not enough of that sort of debate online.

Ken is usually fairly balanced on subjects he talks about, he's usually fairly funny too, usually unintentionally. Looking forward to the politics podcast. I just hope he doesn't "balance" it with an idiot like Michael Graham, or god forbid Milo.

Second Captains

Comments