Following on from main thread in Current Affairs about Tubs in general (now closed and mod suggestion that Entertainment category is more suitable).
Indeed, entertainment in certain respects is what Tubs has provided, albeit perhaps in a way not intended. And still awaiting 150k payback to the licence fee holder.
And of course, his new career in Virgin Radio which is imminent.
copying some frequent posters from original thread.
@Brendan Bendar
@Gen.Zhukov
@tom23
@thesandeman
@chrisd2019
@Ash.J.Williams
@RoTelly
@hawley
@Loafing Oaf
@Beechwoodspark
@NIMAN
@odyssey06
@fritzelly
@sxt
@jippo nolan
@supereurope
@Tow
@alzer100
@tobefrank321
@jmcc
@Hyperbollix
Cat-Mod: See post here regarding off-topic segues.
Dick & Dom following him today on Virgin. From the toyman to the kids entertainers
Couple of points here. First up, you're completely right about the PRSI and USC, and I've mentioned that up above. But there is corporation tax and VAT to take into account (remember, these payments were made in previous years, where the accounts with Revenue would already have been settled). But these are procedural obstacles, not outright blockers.
The blocker is that companies can't just ignore contractual obligations without amendments to, or replacements for, that contract. Companies are not obligated to act in what we individuals describe as in a "moral" way. They're legally required to selfishly act in their own best interests and the interests of their shareholders. Unilaterally handing back 150k to a client (a double digit percentage of revenue) when there is no contractual reason to do so is categorically not acting in the best interests of the company or the shareholders. This is the reality of the game. Stony capitalism is not a lifestyle-choice. It's baked into our legal system.
And this brings me to a couple of inaccuracies in your Tesco/sausage analogy. First up, Tesco (nor any other corporation with any sense) would never pay up front for stock or services. I'm not nitpicking here. Usually that wouldn't matter in an analogy. But why it does matter here is because it shows exactly how RTE messed up so much. Companies don't pay up front for goods and services, because doing so is such a huge risk and the money so difficult to get back if anything goes wrong. Suppliers always have to invoice after delivering the goods (except under extreme circumstances, where the supplier for some reason has a monopoly or the upper hand in the market in some way). The deal RTE entered into was ludicrous on two fronts. First up, paying for another company's business arrangements, and secondly, paying the supplier (Tubridy) up front.
But more than that, un your analogy, the Sausage company stop sending sausages to Tesco. They break the contract, and Tesco are right - obligated in fact - to go looking for their money back (however difficult that might be). In the actual Tubridy/RTE/Renault situation, the contract wasn't broken. As a matter of fact, the contract specifically calls on RTE to cover Tubridy's fees if Renault don't avail of the services. It wasn't that Tubridy didn't "deliver the sausages". It's that Renault said "Nah, we're ok for sausages, thanks" and RTE were contractually obliged to pay the sausage manufacturer anyway.
I'll address one other point from further up the thread. I can't remember who posted it.
It's the claim that since Tubridy told the PAC that he'd pay the money back, and he didn't, that he lied to the PAC. This is not necessarily the case. The situation changed. And this isn't some kind of Trumpian get-out-clause. It's a factual facet of life. The situation changed. If you tell your kid that you're going to bring them to the cinema on Saturday, and on Friday the cinema burns down, the fact that you can't bring them to the cinema doesn't mean that you lied to them. Every commitment we enter into can only be done "in good faith". We assume that there are no unforeseen mitigating circumstances that will prevent us from fulfilling the commitment. When Tubridy made that statement, he was in contract negotiations that, by all indications, had the 150k payment taken onto account. So he could make that statement at that time to the PAC in good faith. The contract was in the bag. When RTE unilaterally puled out of the negotiations some weeks later, the situation changed, and that commitment could no longer be met. This happens all the time in real life. My mother-in-lay appends "please God" to every commitment she makes or anyone makes to her. Literally. If you say "I'll see you tomorrow", she'll reply "Please God", because she 100% knows and feels that anything could come up to render that good-faith commitment null and void.
This is 100% RTE's fault, their mess, their cockup. And they should be 100% accountable for it. Saying that Tubridy is "morally obligated" to pay it back is just letting them off the hook.
The shareholder in this case is Tubs himself. If he judged it in his own best interest to take the morally correct path and pay back the €150K it ain't a breach of company law to do it. You're intent on finding obstacles where none exist.
And when Tubridy tells the parliamentary committee (and the public) that he intends to pay the money back, but neglects to mention that what he means is he will pay it back if he gets a satisfactory upcoming RTE contract, is letting Tubridy off the hook.
"Be Kind" only applies to the other account I guess...
"When Tubridy made that statement, he was in contract negotiations that, by all indications, had the 150k payment taken onto account. So he could make that statement at that time to the PAC in good faith. The contract was in the bag. When RTE unilaterally puled out of the negotiations some weeks later, the situation changed, and that commitment could no longer be met"
Ahh here you're winding us up, right?
His statement couldn't have been clearer, no work done, money goes back. No conditions.
Cos he knew he'd have been eaten alive if he didn't accept that moral imperative. Now he's slunk away and forgotten his commitments, out of begrudgery for the position he helped put himself in.
In the 70s, even Wogan went home at the weekends. If I owned a house in Dalkey and was a multi-millionaire, and was only working for 3 hours a day, I wouldn't move to London, I'd just commute. Its doable. The poor me thing like he's in Mongolia is wearing a bit thin now.
What's worse is there's been posters here asserting that's the move is a progression, whilst simultaneously calling it forced emigration.
You'd think team tubridy would have a narrative pegged down by now.
but what are you doing here then?
Doesny illuminate much. What do you want people on an Irish radio forum to talk about?
What makes you think he doesn't know anyone on here? I have it on good authority that he knows lots on here, and is wasting a lot of time thinking about us. He's very upset. But not upset enough to cough up his €150k.
Another new account.
Maybe he didn't 'con' rte or the public out of 150,000 but his behaviour when first on camera and later as he began changing his tune speaks of a distasteful human with tenuous morals.
I completely disagree with him ever having any chance of returning to rte either it's setup now or with new (less?) questionable management in place.
The man simply doesn't deserve any chance. And if bakhurst and the govt had had more guts they would have dealt with Forbes and the rest sooner and quicker instead of th jokw that has been the past 6 months and letting DF scuttle off.
Ryan is a, very, “well adjusted” sort and, certainly, not the type to be obsessing about what is being said about him online.
Not sure now reliable ratings for the VM show in UK will be, or when we might get them?
Could we get ratings for the Irish syndication on Q102 sooner??
There's JNLR figures due shortly for Q4 2023, so another 3 months for Q1 2024.
RAJAR much the same, except they provide some data to stations directly (not for publication) in between. Or at least used to.
Same registrant ( Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Limited )for the domain names.
Regards...jmcc
It was the trolley guy, wast it?
I was a hugely admired and respected poster here back in the good old days. Bit of a boards legend tbh.
Hahaha
moderator: I've deleted a lot of off topic posts about who posts on and reads boards.ie which has nothing to do with the forum.
I vehemently disagree personally with the practice of giving system warnings (cards under the old system, points on this) merely for wondering off topic. having said that, I would appreciate not having to spend my evening reading every post to make sure it is associated with the topic of the forum. let's try and keep the balance please.
One little thing… the contract had not been made at the time of his appearance in the presence of the PAC
I know. That’s why my post mentions he was in active contract negotiations at the time. Which he was.
While Ryan is London I would recommend a visit to Tooting...
Tubridy’s sausages had gone off at that stage, Renault didn’t want the smell hanging around their garages
News UK/Virgin also has a more immediate metric in terms of its online listenership. It will be watching those figures closely. Not sure that they will be published but they will play a part in whether Tubridy has a career in Virgin Radio or is moved to Q102 etc full-time.
They're never going to publish them as such, but they might reveal them in brochures for advertisers.
Only if positive.
Well, from experience the raw numbers can turn up anyway, but if there's no puff around them you can tell they're flat or down.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1751471ae521095b085946f3afd00e1d.svg)