scifi77 wrote: » Am I right in saying that Prendeville has a stake in the Radio station? If he has, then I'm afraid it's not as simple as you suggest. I gather he also had a stake in another business (which shall remain nameless) but was asked not to appear there, as the public were turning away in their droves.
Gerriegirl wrote: » Opinion is certainly divided but I agree with scifi. I know the businesses he or she is talking about and what he or she is saying is perfectly correct. I would imagine that as this is a public forum, people need to be mindful of quoting specifics, as I am. On the subject of the man in question, I have always found him to be intensely annoying and just couldn't put myself through listening to him. Any body I have ever heard talking seems to say the same but that is not to say that he doesn't have his listeners. I think that the point that is being made is that a very large percentage of people do NOT listen to him but those who do, feel very strongly about him and would be inclined to be vocal about it. Let's be honest, he has a following but it IS 'limited'.
sok2005 wrote: » This is a case of "The people I talk to say" once again. It just doesn't cut it. All Im asking for is the stats regarding the rise and fall of listeners since he came back. Not your buddies opinions! Regarding the restaurant, again its hearsay!
Gerriegirl wrote: » On the subject of stats and people who are actually listening to his show, do you have proof of the numbers of people involved or is it a case of radios being turned on with many not actually choosing to tune in? Inflated claims of the numbers of people actually listening can also be regarded as hearsay. On the subject of the restaurant, seeing as you have mentioned it, that is very definitely NOT hearsay. There were several statements on the newspaper disassociating themselves with the man and clearly saying that his association with the restaurant had ceased. This was on the back of a host of cancellations. He had been parading around the restaurant, going around to tables on the lead up to Christmas and a friend of mine (and her party) were so incensed that they were paying their hard earned money and having to be subjected to this circus. I also had a booking with a party there (which was made before we realised the man had any association with the place). I rang the restaurant and was assured that the man would be asked NOT to be there. It was abundantly clear that their greatest fear was that I was going to cancel the booking. As it happened, with that assurance, we went ahead with the booking but for what should have been a very busy night, it was clear that many others did not. So believe me, it is most definitely not not hearsay.
sok2005 wrote: » All Im asking for is the stats regarding the rise and fall of listeners since he came back.!
sok2005 wrote: » It's a business not a charity, if he wasn't listened to and didn't pull in the numbers he simply would not have been re-employed. :rolleyes:
Gerriegirl wrote: » Well in fairness, this was the comment to which I was referring when I asked you about the listenership numbers which the man apparently enjoys, or any proof there of. Having a stake in the business was clearly a factor in the man returning to the station which would address part of the OP's question. The man has a listenership but it is certainly not as great as some people would seem to suggest. The man provokes extreme reaction (you either love or hate him) and has always done. On principle, if the restaurant felt it necessary to issue statements in the media, disassociating itself with this man and categorically stating that he no longer had any association with the place, do you think it was right that he should have been in there after that, going around the place as if he owned it? Hardly surprising. It's called 'extreme arrogance', which is the quality that those of us who have no time for the guy, find off-putting. There are plenty of other good restaurants in Cork, so I won't be returning there any time soon and certainly won't be losing any sleep over it. To be totally honest, I don't care who listens to him, so long as I don't have to be subjected to him. I was in a waiting room last year where I sat in silence. In the distance I could hear the said man 'pontificating'. A lady turned and made a derogatory comment about him and was clearly irked by having to listen to him, as he was obviously not her choice. At the risk of the blanket accusation of 'hearsay', I'm afraid I didn't ask this woman her name, so I cannot say who this woman was but I'm simply giving a truthful account of the kind of thing I have witnessed countless people saying about the individual concerned, ever before the infamous incident.
sok2005 wrote: » All I said was, from a business point of view, there is no way, whether or not he is a stakeholder, 96fm would keep him on the air if people were not tuning into the show and if the listenership was depleting daily. So it looks like despite all the people on here that cant stand him and despite all the people who mouth about how arrogant and conceited he is, he may just be doing the job he is employed to do and bring in the listeners.
urbanachiever1 wrote: » I just got back from a few months abroad and accidentally tuned into Cuuurk's 96 FM to hear Neil Prendeville back on the radio! How did this happen? Who let this happen? And true to form within three minutes he had my blood boiling talking about tradesmen now working in the black market "...And I don't blame them for showing two fingers to the system that screwed them". He has to be the most ill-informed, ignorant and bigoted man on radio. Makes me want to leave the country again.
overmantle wrote: » Perhaps Prendeville makes their blood boil though.
urbanachiever1 wrote: » The masturbating in public episode doesn't bother me. It's having a bigot like him on the radio influencing the minds of his audience.
