Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

armchair fusilier · 10-03-2013 08:07PM

ballsymchugh wrote: »

dion fanning was a regular contributor to the show. i would be slow to take his opinion too seriously, given that he is employed by his step-mother, who took over from his late father.

I know what you're saying about the Harris v O'Brien thing, I just don't think Fanning's article is part of that particular war.

Profiler · 10-03-2013 08:54PM

Hidalgo wrote: »

Sadlier's analysis is nothing like Dunphy's imo. Dunphy simply spouts whatever will sound controversial a la George Hook analyzing rugby.

Sadlier is articulated, knows what he's talking about without bluffing & sounds like he does his homework, unlike the 'senior' RTE panelists.

If you think Sadlier dosen't throw in some bull and or bluff frequently then you are not listening as close you should do.

As for Sadlier being articulated? you think he's having two or more sections connected by a flexible joint?

Sadlier is good at giving the impression that he knows what's he talking about but really he dosen't. Despite being a derivative version of Dunphy he's a bigger bluffer than Dunphy is.

Dunphy is a published writer and journalist who has written about more than just football and he has been at the pundrity game a lot longer than Sadlier is likley to ever be. I'm not even a particular fan of Dunphy.

heybaby · 10-03-2013 09:12PM

Alright this whole OTB thing is in danger of getting out of hand. It has been analysed to death in the moments since the unexpected news was delivered last week. First things first, as a sports magazine radio programme it was bloody good, it broke boundaries, it was entertaining, it was insightful, it fulfilled its remit on a shoestring budget and was streets ahead of anything else on radio or tv in the country including any anaemic offering from rte.

OTB made names out of the three main presenters eoin, ken, and ciaran purely because you got the sense they were knowledgeable sports fans who happened to be talking and having banter while on air, it was natural, unaffected and there seemed to be genuine warmth and a mutual respect between them and the off air production team who were equally as important in putting out the top notch product on a nightly basis.

The OTB5 couldnt have attained and maintained such high standards on meagre budgets over a decade without amassing a plethora of respected talking heads from every sport imaginable amongst those i include Giles, Hunter,Sadlier, Taylor , Us Murph and those were just the regulars, there were countless more who loaned their respected names and opinions to the show out of respect for a high calibre show.

There were no geniuses on the show, just very savy presenters and quick witted sports lovers. Sadlier is no dunphy, because sadlier doesnt let his heart rule his head, and sadlier is better for it and more articulate. What is true is Devitt was an excellent host very subtly orchestrating the observational banter between jester-like murph and the laconic Early, all the while allowing the sporting analysis to be digestable to even the most uninitiated.

Forget about the schedule changes, an hour earlier , an hour later ? its irrevelant now. My hope is that some vestige of what was OTB surfaces elsewhere just as cavalier, insightful and banterfilled as before. Until then my radio will be silent come 7pm.

IRE60 · 10-03-2013 09:17PM

"once in a generation talent" - if that was the case, they'd pull more than 39,000* listeners a night.

*And to the Sunday Business Post - write once, check twice I believe is the rule.

If you didn't ape the figures from a website that got it wrong in the first place, the story in the media section today would have been much more credible.

Hidalgo · 10-03-2013 09:21PM

Profiler wrote: »

If you think Sadlier dosen't throw in some bull and or bluff frequently then you are not listening as close you should do.

As for Sadlier being articulated? you think he's having two or more sections connected by a flexible joint?

Sadlier is good at giving the impression that he knows what's he talking about but really he dosen't. Despite being a derivative version of Dunphy he's a bigger bluffer than Dunphy is.

Dunphy is a published writer and journalist who has written about more than just football and he has been at the pundrity game a lot longer than Sadlier is likley to ever be. I'm not even a particular fan of Dunphy.

Apologies, should have been articulate.

armchair fusilier · 10-03-2013 09:27PM

IRE60 wrote: »

*And to the Sunday Business Post - write once, check twice I believe is the rule.

If you didn't ape the figures from a website that got it wrong in the first place, the story in the media section today would have been much more credible.

What was the story and why wasn't it credible?

ballsymchugh · 10-03-2013 09:36PM

heybaby wrote: »

Alright this whole OTB thing is in danger of getting out of hand. It has been analysed to death in the moments since the unexpected news was delivered last week. First things first, as a sports magazine radio programme it was bloody good, it broke boundaries, it was entertaining, it was insightful, it fulfilled its remit on a shoestring budget and was streets ahead of anything else on radio or tv in the country including any anaemic offering from rte.

OTB made names out of the three main presenters eoin, ken, and ciaran purely because you got the sense they were knowledgeable sports fans who happened to be talking and having banter while on air, it was natural, unaffected and there seemed to be genuine warmth and a mutual respect between them and the off air production team who were equally as important in putting out the top notch product on a nightly basis.

The OTB5 couldnt have attained and maintained such high standards on meagre budgets over a decade without amassing a plethora of respected talking heads from every sport imaginable amongst those i include Giles, Hunter,Sadlier, Taylor , Us Murph and those were just the regulars, there were countless more who loaned their respected names and opinions to the show out of respect for a high calibre show.

There were no geniuses on the show, just very savy presenters and quick witted sports lovers. Sadlier is no dunphy, because sadlier doesnt let his heart rule his head, and sadlier is better for it and more articulate. What is true is Devitt was an excellent host very subtly orchestrating the observational banter between jester-like murph and the laconic Early, all the while allowing the sporting analysis to be digestable to even the most uninitiated.

Forget about the schedule changes, an hour earlier , an hour later ? its irrevelant now. My hope is that some vestige of what was OTB surfaces elsewhere just as cavalier, insightful and banterfilled as before. Until then my radio will be silent come 7pm.

you can always click on the unfollow tab ......

soc160 · 10-03-2013 10:29PM

Profiler wrote: »

If you think Sadlier dosen't throw in some bull and or bluff frequently then you are not listening as close you should do.

As for Sadlier being articulated? you think he's having two or more sections connected by a flexible joint?

Sadlier is good at giving the impression that he knows what's he talking about but really he dosen't. Despite being a derivative version of Dunphy he's a bigger bluffer than Dunphy is.

Dunphy is a published writer and journalist who has written about more than just football and he has been at the pundrity game a lot longer than Sadlier is likley to ever be. I'm not even a particular fan of Dunphy.

In fairness Profiler, you are being very "uppity" in this discussion. There is no need to rubbish others opinions because you don't like them, nor should you rubbish pundits such as Sadlier because they don't meet your high standards. Why do you believe that Sadlier is bluffing about things? Do you know better than we do? Why do two separate news organisations have him hired to offer opinions if he just sits around bluffing and why, if it is so easy, do others not do it?

Profiler · 10-03-2013 11:45PM

soc160 wrote: »

In fairness Profiler, you are being very "uppity" in this discussion. There is no need to rubbish others opinions because you don't like them, nor should you rubbish pundits such as Sadlier because they don't meet your high standards. Why do you believe that Sadlier is bluffing about things? Do you know better than we do? Why do two separate news organisations have him hired to offer opinions if he just sits around bluffing and why, if it is so easy, do others not do it?

Uppity? you'll have to explain that one to me.

Show me where I rubbished others opinions? I rubbished an article because it was frankly embarrassing. Calling Ken a genius and an once in a lifetime talent? that is cringe worthy

Before he left he'd been on off the ball for 10 years.

In that time both Craig Doyle and Ryan Tubridy have worked on the BBC, where as Ken did what? anything beyond Ireland? (Oh and I don't mean pretending to be "Ken Burley" and phoning a Welsh radio station to talk about a sport he admits he knows very little about) If he was half as good as some people are making him out to be why did nobody come calling for him?

I rubbished Sadlier for very good reason. I've showed his statement about Rangers being interested in him as a player for what it was, obvious bull, in their entire sordid history before going out of existence last year Rangers never signed a Republic of Ireland international nobody who knows anything about football would ever believe that Sadlier was going to end up at Ibrox.

He likes to talk about his time at St Pats and yet he was part of a regime at Richmond park that operated with an astronomical budget and won nothing and only barley avoided relegation, he appointed Jeff Kenna and when that went south he blamed others for his own failing. If he was so good why did the club only start to come back once he left?

I don't agree with a lot of what Dunphy says, but I don't rubbish him because I respect him, same with John Giles. Sadlier is miles off being as good as those two. Isn't Kenny Cunningham more used these days in RTE than Sadlier?

Sadlier is a critic, as a critic the first thing he should expect is criticism, yet some feel he shouldn't be criticised.

Cienciano · 11-03-2013 12:07AM

Profiler wrote: »

Uppity? you'll have to explain that one to me.

Show me where I rubbished others opinions? I rubbished an article because it was frankly embarrassing. Calling Ken a genius and an once in a lifetime talent? that is cringe worthy

Before he left he'd been on off the ball for 10 years.

In that time both Craig Doyle and Ryan Tubridy have worked on the BBC, where as Ken did what? anything beyond Ireland? (Oh and I don't mean pretending to be "Ken Burley" and phoning a Welsh radio station to talk about a sport he admits he knows very little about) If he was half as good as some people are making him out to be why did nobody come calling for him?

I rubbished Sadlier for very good reason. I've showed his statement about Rangers being interested in him as a player for what it was, obvious bull, in their entire sordid history before going out of existence last year Rangers never signed a Republic of Ireland international nobody who knows anything about football would ever believe that Sadlier was going to end up at Ibrox.

He likes to talk about his time at St Pats and yet he was part of a regime at Richmond park that operated with an astronomical budget and won nothing and only barley avoided relegation, he appointed Jeff Kenna and when that went south he blamed others for his own failing. If he was so good why did the club only start to come back once he left?

I don't agree with a lot of what Dunphy says, but I don't rubbish him because I respect him, same with John Giles. Sadlier is miles off being as good as those two. Isn't Kenny Cunningham more used these days in RTE than Sadlier?

Sadlier is a critic, as a critic the first thing he should expect is criticism, yet some feel he shouldn't be criticised.

Bizarre rants profiler. Look at your post history in this thread. You hate ken, think dead air is better than richie sadlier (apparently that rangers story you keep posting has somehow ruined his credability

) you've said the off the ball team are the lowest common denominator journalism (from the person who called richie sadlier "richard sad liar") and they lie on air, you despise their humour and cant stand them repeating jokes.
Why did you listen to the show?
The irony is, you have 23 posts in this thread, all negative towards off the ball, but the first one is slating ken for "not being positive" about Brendan Rogers.

Hidalgo · 11-03-2013 12:26AM

Profiler wrote: »

Uppity? you'll have to explain that one to me.

Show me where I rubbished others opinions? I rubbished an article because it was frankly embarrassing. Calling Ken a genius and an once in a lifetime talent? that is cringe worthy

Before he left he'd been on off the ball for 10 years.

In that time both Craig Doyle and Ryan Tubridy have worked on the BBC, where as Ken did what? anything beyond Ireland? (Oh and I don't mean pretending to be "Ken Burley" and phoning a Welsh radio station to talk about a sport he admits he knows very little about) If he was half as good as some people are making him out to be why did nobody come calling for him?

I rubbished Sadlier for very good reason. I've showed his statement about Rangers being interested in him as a player for what it was, obvious bull, in their entire sordid history before going out of existence last year Rangers never signed a Republic of Ireland international nobody who knows anything about football would ever believe that Sadlier was going to end up at Ibrox.

He likes to talk about his time at St Pats and yet he was part of a regime at Richmond park that operated with an astronomical budget and won nothing and only barley avoided relegation, he appointed Jeff Kenna and when that went south he blamed others for his own failing. If he was so good why did the club only start to come back once he left?

I don't agree with a lot of what Dunphy says, but I don't rubbish him because I respect him, same with John Giles. Sadlier is miles off being as good as those two. Isn't Kenny Cunningham more used these days in RTE than Sadlier?

Sadlier is a critic, as a critic the first thing he should expect is criticism, yet some feel he shouldn't be criticised.

I for one never said he shouldn't be critisiced. My opinion on the man comes from radio interviews and EPL/Irish games and in going by that, I find hem a good analyst to listen to.
A fair bit of what Giles and Dunphy come out with aint exactly insightful and falls into the bluff category of analysis, they hardly know players names.

i.e during Euro 2012, there was a discussion on whether Ireland could play a passing game or did they have the players?
To argue the point that you don't need Barca type players, they showed a clip of Swansea with Giles analysing the type of players they had, a description which basically consisted of Giles stating 'look how no.7 passes the ball then moves, if these lads are such experts would it kill them to do a bit of homework on the clip they're supposed to be debating & learn players names.
Ditto, both (more so Dunphy) take a dislike to a player's attitude & will continually slate said player, no matter how much evidence that player produces to show he has improved. For years, Ronaldo was a bottler, can't do it in the big game etc etc etc.
(btw both are still well worth watching imo. Maybe its because Sadlier doesn't offer the exact game that I find slightly interesting)

Profiler · 11-03-2013 12:31AM

Cienciano wrote: »

Bizarre rants profiler. Look at your post history in this thread. You hate ken, think dead air is better than richie sadlier (apparently that rangers story you keep posting has somehow ruined his credability) you've said the off the ball team are the lowest common denominator journalism (from the person who called richie sadlier "richard sad liar") and they lie on air, you despise their humour and cant stand them repeating jokes.
Why did you listen to the show?
The irony is, you have 23 posts in this thread, all negative towards off the ball, but the first one is slating ken for "not being positive" about Brendan Rogers.

Oh so now I hate Ken? hate is a strong word, it's not a word I'd use.

However it's good that you do go inventing things about my views just to shore up your own shaky opinion on me.

Ultimately this is a discussion thread, it's one for airing a myriad of opinions on this show, if you are unable to read criticism of this show and it's former presenters then you may wish to consider unfollowing the thread, otherwise accept that people will disagree with your view, some strongly, others less so.

Yamanoto · 11-03-2013 12:39AM

Profiler wrote: »

In that time both Craig Doyle and Ryan Tubridy have worked on the BBC, where as Ken did what? anything beyond Ireland?

Surely it's about the quality of the work, not where you choose to do it.

Working for the BBC should not by definition bestow some additional validation or credibility on any given broadcaster - if anything, their moonlighting merely serves to highlight that Doyle and Tubridy's mediocrity is not constrained by national borders.

Profiler · 11-03-2013 01:00AM

Yamanoto wrote: »

Surely it's about the quality of the work, not where you choose to do it.

Working for the BBC should not by definition bestow some additional validation or credibility on any given broadcaster - if anything, their moonlighting merely serves to highlight that Doyle and Tubridy's mediocrity is not constrained by national borders.

He's apparently a genius and the once in a lifetime broadcaster. So quallity will work everywhere, not just Newstalk.

Where else is an English only speaking broadcaster whose specialty is "Soccer" going to go if not the BBC?

Mr Whirly · 11-03-2013 01:07AM

Profiler wrote: »

Where else is an English only speaking broadcaster whose specialty is "Soccer" going to go if not the BBC?

Talksport, where they'll all end up I reckon.

soc160 · 11-03-2013 01:08AM

Profiler wrote: »

Uppity? you'll have to explain that one to me.

Show me where I rubbished others opinions? I rubbished an article because it was frankly embarrassing. Calling Ken a genius and an once in a lifetime talent? that is cringe worthy

Before he left he'd been on off the ball for 10 years.

In that time both Craig Doyle and Ryan Tubridy have worked on the BBC, where as Ken did what? anything beyond Ireland? (Oh and I don't mean pretending to be "Ken Burley" and phoning a Welsh radio station to talk about a sport he admits he knows very little about) If he was half as good as some people are making him out to be why did nobody come calling for him?

I rubbished Sadlier for very good reason. I've showed his statement about Rangers being interested in him as a player for what it was, obvious bull, in their entire sordid history before going out of existence last year Rangers never signed a Republic of Ireland international nobody who knows anything about football would ever believe that Sadlier was going to end up at Ibrox.

He likes to talk about his time at St Pats and yet he was part of a regime at Richmond park that operated with an astronomical budget and won nothing and only barley avoided relegation, he appointed Jeff Kenna and when that went south he blamed others for his own failing. If he was so good why did the club only start to come back once he left?

I don't agree with a lot of what Dunphy says, but I don't rubbish him because I respect him, same with John Giles. Sadlier is miles off being as good as those two. Isn't Kenny Cunningham more used these days in RTE than Sadlier?

Sadlier is a critic, as a critic the first thing he should expect is criticism, yet some feel he shouldn't be criticised.

Firstly, Uppity.

https://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=uppity&oq=uppity&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.487.2089.0.2343.6.6.0.0.0.0.220.596.4j1j1.6.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.tl0M0eYYPEk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.ZGU&fp=b7400c6814d75151&biw=1525&bih=715

Explained there, basically being arrogant.

For one you have rubbished Sadlier's opinions on football, a very general theme in your post's.

I have no idea why you are asking about Ken in this post, I never mentioned him in mine, he did however host the Guardian Football Podcast before, which is a fairly big thing. Doyle and Tubridy are Television personalities who receive much more exposure than an football correspondent on a radio station will receive anyway.

Just because Sadlier failed as an administrator doesn't diminish his football knowledge or his understanding of the game, he offers an opinion on air, the presenter ask's some questions, probes a bit and then the listeners get involved and he backs up his point or not. He talks about his time at St.Pats because it's experience he has in football, he talks about his time at Millwall too.

As for Dunphy, no one bar you is comparing him to Dunphy, which is strange because you're not comparing him really, your contrasting the two and using Dunphy because you respect him but dont actually like him that much at the same time. Where exactly does your respect for him stem from, as a journalist, a pundit or a footballer?

Profiler wrote: »

If you think Sadlier dosen't throw in some bull and or bluff frequently then you are not listening as close you should do.

As for Sadlier being articulated? you think he's having two or more sections connected by a flexible joint?

Sadlier is good at giving the impression that he knows what's he talking about but really he dosen't. Despite being a derivative version of Dunphy he's a bigger bluffer than Dunphy is.

Dunphy is a published writer and journalist who has written about more than just football and he has been at the pundrity game a lot longer than Sadlier is likley to ever be. I'm not even a particular fan of Dunphy.

The text in bold would be an example of you being uppity if you needed one, everyone else knew what was meant here.

At the start you claim that he throws in a bluff sometimes, which you have left unfounded, you cannot prove that.

Also you use the Dunphy/Sadlier narrative again here, contrasting the two unfairly.

Profiler wrote: »

A good piece? really? "good"

I'd call that something so bad a proctologist would be embarrassed about it.

"The Off The Ball team are all first-rate, but Ken Early is even better than that. I believe that Ken is a broadcasting genius, a once-in-a-generation talent, a Gay Byrne, a Jonathan Ross, a Danny Baker"

Oh dear god that is bad, I had to stop reading at that for fear I'd see my Sunday lunch again.

That is a horrifyingly bad puff piece of tabloid hack-ery.

Above here you rubbish the poster who said this was a good article by claiming otherwise.

Profiler wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/footballs-senseless-bigotry-hasnt-gone-away-you-know-26726387.html

"Midway through the season in which I picked up the injury which eventually finished my career, I was aware Rangers were one of the clubs interested in signing me."

Anyone who thinks for a single second that the now dead club Rangers were ever going to sign a ROI international player is not a student of history.

Sadlier put that story to print because he wanted to make a career for himself as a pundit. And sure why not have a petty dig at Celtic fans while he's at?

If he can put such an obvious bull story to print he has zero respect for the reader.

I know a few St Pats fans who saw Sadlier's time at the club as embarrassing and yet we are told he is knowledgeable about football?

Sadlier has just taken Dunphy's model of punditry and copied it. He's a watered down less knowledgeable version of Eamon.

Again with the Dunphy/Sadlier narrative.

Saying that Sadlier failed at his time at St.Pats means he isn't knowledgable about football is just down right undermining the man, you obviously have no respect for him but don't really seem to be basing that on him as a pundit but more so other factors. We are all aware that Rangers don't sign Irish players but why would he make up a lie, follow through with it and print it, is he that neurotic that he feels he needs to try and fool a nation, just for fun?

Cienciano · 11-03-2013 01:26AM

Profiler wrote: »

Oh so now I hate Ken? hate is a strong word, it's not a word I'd use.

However it's good that you do go inventing things about my views just to shore up your own shaky opinion on me.

Ultimately this is a discussion thread, it's one for airing a myriad of opinions on this show, if you are unable to read criticism of this show and it's former presenters then you may wish to consider unfollowing the thread, otherwise accept that people will disagree with your view, some strongly, others less so.

Well, hate is an intense dislike. So considering every post you've made about OTB is borderline ranting about it, and sometimes irrational rants, you dislike every aspect of the show, I think it's safe to say your dislike is "intense".
But you think I invented that about your views on the show? MAybe you should read back over the thread!
I'm well able to read criticism, and I'll follow whatever threads I like thank you very much! Your "criticism" is just bizarre rants imho, I was just pointing that out.
So, why do you listen to the show if you hate it so much?

Profiler · 11-03-2013 02:04AM

Cienciano wrote: »

Well, hate is an intense dislike. So considering every post you've made about OTB is borderline ranting about it, and sometimes irrational rants, you dislike every aspect of the show, I think it's safe to say your dislike is "intense".
But you think I invented that about your views on the show? MAybe you should read back over the thread!
I'm well able to read criticism, and I'll follow whatever threads I like thank you very much! Your "criticism" is just bizarre rants imho, I was just pointing that out.
So, why do you listen to the show if you hate it so much?

I don't hate anything about the show, it really does speak volumes about how poor your argument is if all you can do is invent views you hope I hold.

Where have I ever said I disliked every aspect of the show? again, I haven't said that at all. If you want to discredit what I say, try and not make up stuff

All you've got is to accuse me of bizarre rants and of being irrational. In response all I will say is attack the post not the poster.

I'm entitled to my opinion, I'm entitled to express that opinion. If you don't like that then perhaps a discussion thread where many views will be expressed is not the best place for you.

Profiler · 11-03-2013 02:05AM

Mr Whirly wrote: »

Talksport, where they'll all end up I reckon.

Can't say I've heard very much of that station so I'm not in a position to say where they may fit in, but good luck to the 5 of them, hope they end up somewhere gainfully employed.

armchair fusilier · 11-03-2013 02:18AM

Profiler wrote: »

I don't hate anything about the show, it really does speak volumes about how poor your argument is if all you can do is invent views you hope I hold.

Where have I ever said I disliked every aspect of the show? again, I haven't said that at all. If you want to discredit what I say, try and not make up stuff

All you've got is to accuse me of bizarre rants and of being irrational. In response all I will say is attack the post not the poster.

I'm entitled to my opinion, I'm entitled to express that opinion. If you don't like that then perhaps a discussion thread where many views will be expressed is not the best place for you.

If you google "Ken Burley" the second item that comes up is a boards.ie thread, a certain posters performance in there mirrors this one pretty much. Give it oxygen and it will just keep going...non-stop.

Profiler · 11-03-2013 02:18AM

soc160 wrote: »

Firstly, Uppity.

https://www.google.ie/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=uppity&oq=uppity&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.487.2089.0.2343.6.6.0.0.0.0.220.596.4j1j1.6.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.tl0M0eYYPEk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.ZGU&fp=b7400c6814d75151&biw=1525&bih=715

Explained there, basically being arrogant.

Second hit on your own Google search: "Yep, 'Uppity is Racist'

You might want to role back on that one.

soc160 wrote: »

For one you have rubbished Sadlier's opinions on football, a very general theme in your post's.

Yes I did, I pointed out how he wrote an obvious lie, one which is painfully transparent, one which if he thinks people who know anything about football can't see through is frankly insulting to the reader.

I cite Craig Doyle, Tubrity and Dunphy as it has been suggested Ken was a once in a lifetime broadcaster, how can I discuss that without citing any peers that may be out there.

Seems to me you are desperate to close off all avenues of discussion on this topic and resort to personal insults. I'm open to any arguments you or anyone else may have, whereas you on the other hand don't want me to be able to back up what I say, why? for fear I might be correct?

styron · 11-03-2013 04:10AM

Profiler wrote: »

He's apparently a genius and the once in a lifetime broadcaster. So quallity will work everywhere, not just Newstalk.

Where else is an English only speaking broadcaster whose specialty is "Soccer" going to go if not the BBC?

Ken's hosted the Guardian soccer Podcast, not a small deal - if you knew anything much about soccer or listened regularly to OFB you'd know that. Since it appears you're so awestruck with any Celts the BBC employs (Tubridy & Doyle - FFS! :rolleyes:) you might wax lyrical for a few lines about the talents of Ally McCoist and how impressed you must be by him!

Bottom line - you're hating on Sadlier because he's a Rangers supporter and offering what you consider an offensive confusion of a simple narrative truth: Rangers = "sordid" bigots & Celtic = innocent righteous victims. Sadlier dissents from Old Firm bigotry as a one way street where any hatred of Rangers is justified and dressed up both as a legitimate moral response of the perpetually discriminated/oppressed victim and an essential component of what it is to be Irish.

Profiler wrote:

in their entire sordid history before going out of existence last year Rangers never signed a Republic of Ireland international

WRONG - a simple check on Wikipedia would reveal there have been three: Alex Craig, Alex Stevenson and James Macauley.

You're crying obvious crocodile tears over ROI players not playing for a "sordid" team you despise - faking hurt and a ludicrous sense of injustice in the process. If a Republic of Ireland international transferred to Rangers, he would immediately be disqualified as a traitor unworthy of the green jersey in your eyes. The only thing you find marginally less offensive and inconceivable is that anyone from the ROI (like Sadlier) would actually support Rangers!

IRE60 · 11-03-2013 09:33AM

armchair fusilier wrote: »

What was the story and why wasn't it credible?

Story was in the media section - said that the show reached 59,000 - which is wrong. It said that the figures 'weren't bad' - seemingly based on the inaccurate 59k.
But looking at the facts, they reached only 39k and it was the worst performing slot, in Listnership terms, in the station.
If media cant comment about their own industry (which they should be closest to) accurately - it's a sad reflection on that medium - IMO.

C

armchair fusilier · 11-03-2013 11:02AM

Cheers.

IRE60 wrote: »

Story was in the media section - said that the show reached 59,000 - which is wrong. It said that the figures 'weren't bad' - seemingly based on the inaccurate 59k.
But looking at the facts, they reached only 39k and it was the worst performing slot, in Listnership terms, in the station.

OK, accepting that the 59k figure is wrong I still don't think that it is valid to refer to OTB as the worst performing slot - the same could be said of every station at that time of night. It's certainly wasn't being outperformed by the Green Room, Coleman at Large, Davenport after Dark and Splanc.

OTB was the most listened to station in that time slot and the the only programme on an independent station that was beating it's counterpart on RTE Radio 1 at any time. When you factor in that it has to compete with television in a way those earlier slots don't and Newstalk's low overall market share compared to Radio 1's, I think it's fair to say that it's figures "weren't bad" - in fact they were very good.

Tombo2001 · 11-03-2013 11:07AM

I actually find the listenership figures a little difficult to believe.

This is the reason why.

Personally, Off the Ball is the only radio show I listen to.

Whats more, its the only radio show I would actively talk to people about.

Most people I know, male, mid-thirties, would listen to the show. Especially if they are a sports fan.

I could ask them about any other radio show, wouldnt have a clue.

I'd like to know how the listenership figures are calculated.......because obviously that show was only attracting a particular type of listener.....

Namely male, say between 20 upwards.....anyone who is interested in sport and listens to the radio basically.

But for that particular type of listener, I'd say it had a huge % following, and I doubt that this was captured in the listenership figures.

mike65 · 11-03-2013 11:11AM

styron wrote: »

Ken's hosted the Guardian soccer Podcast, not a small deal - if you knew anything much about soccer or listened regularly to OFB you'd know that.

He did it twice (I think) and was terrible both times.

But that's by the by.

Carry on.

kevmy85 · 11-03-2013 11:24AM

IRE60 wrote: »

Story was in the media section - said that the show reached 59,000 - which is wrong. It said that the figures 'weren't bad' - seemingly based on the inaccurate 59k.
But looking at the facts, they reached only 39k and it was the worst performing slot, in Listnership terms, in the station.
If media cant comment about their own industry (which they should be closest to) accurately - it's a sad reflection on that medium - IMO.

C

The most recent quartely figures had OTB at 39k, previously they had been as high as 59k (i.e. they at one stage reached 59k). They were not the worst performing show on the station as evidenced by the figures highlighted earlier in the thread. Also they considerably outperformed every other national station in their timeslot.

Certainly they were a success in their time slot. The thing that Newstalk management didn't believe was that they could be a success (or at least as successful as George Hook) in an earlier slot.

soc160 · 11-03-2013 02:11PM

Profiler wrote: »

Second hit on your own Google search: "Yep, 'Uppity is Racist'

You might want to role back on that one.

Yes I did, I pointed out how he wrote an obvious lie, one which is painfully transparent, one which if he thinks people who know anything about football can't see through is frankly insulting to the reader.

I cite Craig Doyle, Tubrity and Dunphy as it has been suggested Ken was a once in a lifetime broadcaster, how can I discuss that without citing any peers that may be out there.

Seems to me you are desperate to close off all avenues of discussion on this topic and resort to personal insults. I'm open to any arguments you or anyone else may have, whereas you on the other hand don't want me to be able to back up what I say, why? for fear I might be correct?

First result is the actual definition, so I stand by what I said. Anyway im leaving you open to discuss your point but your yet to actually back up your arguments properly, rubbishing Sadlier by comparing him to more illustrious people is like saying footballer X is better than footballer Y because X has won more, not taking into account any other circumstances considering where they play and what level they are at.

As I said Craig Doyle and Ryan Tubirdy are TV personalities and receive more exposure, it's not exactly comparing him to his peers, specially considering Doyle and Tubirdy operate in completely different circles.

I don't think im being insulting, you are having 3 sperate arguments with people on this topic, they don't agree with you and are being stubborn and using the same recycled argument that no one seems to buying into, so I think im entitled to say your being arrogant.

Yamanoto · 11-03-2013 02:38PM

Profiler wrote: »

He's apparently a genius and the once in a lifetime broadcaster.

In comparison to Craig Doyle, I'd say the above is accurate enough tbh.

Profiler wrote: »

Where else is an English only speaking broadcaster whose specialty is "Soccer" going to go if not the BBC?

European soccer is awash with freelance Journo's producing work for print, TV, radio and online consumption.

Graham Hunter, Jonathan Wilson, Philippe Auclair, Gabrielli Marcotti, Sid Lowe, Amy Lawrence and even BBC stalwarts such as Tim Vickery regularly appear on Newstalk, Sky, ESPN, Talksport, Setanta etc.

styron · 11-03-2013 02:43PM

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I actually find the listenership figures a little difficult to believe.

This is the reason why.

Personally, Off the Ball is the only radio show I listen to.

Whats more, its the only radio show I would actively talk to people about.

Most people I know, male, mid-thirties, would listen to the show. Especially if they are a sports fan.

I could ask them about any other radio show, wouldnt have a clue.

I'd like to know how the listenership figures are calculated.......because obviously that show was only attracting a particular type of listener.....

Namely male, say between 20 upwards.....anyone who is interested in sport and listens to the radio basically.

But for that particular type of listener, I'd say it had a huge % following, and I doubt that this was captured in the listenership figures.

"The JNLR survey is conducted via in-home, personal interviews, among an annual sample of c15,000 adults aged 15+ in Ireland. The survey utilises the ‘one-day-aided’ recall methodology, whereby the respondent recalls all listening activity for the day prior to interview. A scripted, paper and pen, questionnaire is used by Ipsos MRBI's team of specialist interviewers.
The JNLR survey is representative of the adult (15+) population of the country, the latest estimate of which is derived from the CSO - Quarterly National Household survey.
The JNLR delivers average daily audiences, based on a rolling 12 month database. Analysis of data is conducted at a national, regional and local franchise level and by the main demographic groups for all stations.
The sample is drawn to be representative of the population of each radio franchise area in geographic and demographic terms. Weighting factors are applied at analysis stage to re-align the national sample to known population estimates."

http://info.ipsosmrbi.com/jnlr/methodology

On that basis I suspect a large proportion of the OTB audience flies under the radar. Factor in figures for 'listen back'/podcasting at home and from emigrants abroad, and I imagine the real audience is much larger again - NT will have a better idea on the basis of download and comparative '30 cent text-in' volume. If they could only have found some way to monetise the podcasts ...

Stuck with the JNLR figures alone it doesn't look good for OTB - in an overall declining evening market it's faring badly with a Q4 decline from 50,000 to 39,000 (amazingly to me):

http://www.bizplus.ie/upload/documents/OMD_JNLR_Charts_(Jan-Dec_12).pdf

One explanation that might ring paradoxically true:

"Elsewhere, she [Oilbhe Doyle of media agency OMD] says that the late evening (7pm-9pm broadly) slot has seen significant declines, bucking the trend of most recent years. "Dave Fanning is the only show experiencing increases whilst Off the Ball must be very disappointed with a 28% fall in listenership for what in many ways is now a seminal show in the Irish radio landscape. Ironically, one wonders if the surfeit of live sport hosted in our time zone (Olympics, Special Olympics and the Euros) had a detrimental effect on the listenership of Ireland's leading sports radio show."

http://www.adworld.ie/news/read/?id=bdcc10d4-e212-4729-96b6-5bad615a3b44

If the lads weren't already up against it - bring on the format pilfering parasitic zombie that is RTE, desperate to shore up 2FM - the revamped sports show with added live commentary - to leech what audience it could.

You can see why OTB couldn't stand still in the JNLR ratings game and the guys were keen to try and straddle the much larger potential drive time audience with a mixed sports/current affairs format - if the reports are true.

Damning OTB by comparing it's audience with Hook's drive time is ridiculous - the time slots are chalk & cheese, comparing a captive audience to an elective one - eg. av. 2012 audience: (RTE1) Drivetime to Sport at 7 dropped from 266,000 to 31,000, Hook to OTB 136K to 46K.

In any event there's a strong argument to be made aside from ratings alone, that OTB can fall within a Public Service remit: if Denis O'Brien hopes to get his hands on any restructured licence fee funding this is exactly the kind of litmus test programming that has to be developed.

Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Comments