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

Dots1982

There’s the weirdest pod on the highlights of off the ball feed; Nathan talking to Brian Kerr on some sort of Jameson whiskey sponsored (other whiskeys are available) event about his ireland management career...for barely 15 minutes. Utterly pointless.

RugbyLover123

Surprised nobody mentioned the 10 minute segment about Brazilian politics when they had Tim Vickery on to talk about the Copa Lib. Was quite interesting actually because how he explained it but still nothing to do with football on a football show.

Tell me how

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Surprised nobody mentioned the 10 minute segment about Brazilian politics when they had Tim Vickery on to talk about the Copa Lib. Was quite interesting actually because how he explained it but still nothing to do with football on a football show.

Didn't hear it but will check it out.

Did he say if he thinks Gremio's appeal should work or why he thinks it won't.

CatFromHue

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Surprised nobody mentioned the 10 minute segment about Brazilian politics when they had Tim Vickery on to talk about the Copa Lib. Was quite interesting actually because how he explained it but still nothing to do with football on a football show.

It was great.

Chalk and cheese between it and what Ewan MacKenna had to say on the same subject on The Hard Shoulder.

gormdubhgorm

Tell me how wrote: »

They probably don't listen to it.
They probably hear a 5/6 minute article once every couple of weeks and deduce from that exactly what the show is like, why it's failing and why other shows with smaller listenerships are better.

Disagreeing/disliking something is fine. When you back it up and discuss it.
(That's what discussion is)

That is a real creation of a narrative if ever I saw one.
Did I used to enjoy OTB and listen to it regularly yes.
Now I do not at all as I have gradually become tired of it.

But the way you framed that post is actually very intelligent on your part.
If you listen to a 5/6 minute segment and negatively critic it, you can say oh you did not listen to the whole show.
Then if the same person listened to the whole show and still did not like it - you can say if you do not like it why are you listening to the show?

Also this excludes the reality that in this day and age people rarely listen to a whole show - if they enjoy it or not not. They can pick and chose bits on various platforms.

As for you last comment:

"Disagreeing/disliking something is fine. When you back it up and discuss it.
(That's what discussion is)"

You admitted yourself that you do not post anything negative about the show.
You only post when you hear something positive.
That is in no way shape or form what discussion is.
To me that is behaving like people who enjoy a niche you tube video and it is a group-think where everyone says how fantastic it is.

Then there are other times where you seem to play this devil's advocate persona - as shown by your post about the Mayo ladies footballers on this page - where you try and justify the unjustifiable and yet again create a positive spin for OTB. Another narrative creation with plenty of conjecture.

When I did listen to OTB - when something was good I said it was good.
When something was not good I said it.
That is discussion not someone with constant selective hearing.

I no longer listen to OTB and they have lost a listener.
It does not fit the narrative you are trying to create so you will probably put a positive spin on that as well?

Tell me how

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is a real creation of a narrative if ever I saw one.
Did I used to enjoy OTB and listen to it regularly yes.
Now I do not at all as I have gradually become tired of it.

But the way you framed that post is actually very intelligent on your part.
If you listen to a 5/6 minute segment and negatively critic it, you can say oh you did not listen to the whole show.
Then if the same person listened to the whole show and still did not like it - you can say if you do not like it why are you listening to the show?

Also this excludes the reality that in this day and age people rarely listen to a whole show if they enjoy it or not not.

As for you last comment:

"Disagreeing/disliking something is fine. When you back it up and discuss it.
(That's what discussion is)"

You admitted yourself that you do not post anything negative about the show.
You only post when you hear something positive.
That is in no way shape or form what discussion is.
To me that is behaving like people who enjoy a niche you tube video and it is a group-think where everyone says how fantastic it is.

Also you seem to play this devil's advocate persona as show by your post about the Mayo ladies - where you try and justify the unjustifiable and yet again create a positive spin for OTB.

When I did listen to OTB - when something was good I said it was good.
When something was not good I said it.
That is discussion not someone with constant selective hearing.

I no longer listen to OTB and they have lost a listener.
It does not fit the narrative you are trying to create so you will probably put a positive spin on that as well?

Don't want to keep you here against your will.

You are wrong in pretty much everything else by the way but thanks for saying the way I worded my post was very intelligent. I'll put you as a referee on my cv.

Tell me how

Kind of a funny one from last week (although not a funny topic). Richie had the pronunciation of the Leicester owner, Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, who died in the helicopter crash down to a t. Said it a few times consecutively. He did follow it up though by pronouncing Pat Hoban of Dundalk as Pat Hooban which kind of undid his efforts.

OldMrBrennan83

Tell me how wrote: »

Kind of a funny one from last week (although not a funny topic). Richie had the pronunciation of the Leicester owner, Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, who died in the helicopter crash down to a t. Said it a few times consecutively. He did follow it up though by pronouncing Pat Hoban of Dundalk as Pat Hooban which kind of undid his efforts.

It is pronounced Hooban.

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

It is pronounced Hooban.

Is it? In what locations? I work with a guy with that name and he is 'Hoban'

In that case full marks to Richie....

OldMrBrennan83

Tell me how wrote: »

Is it? In what locations? I work with a guy with that name and he is 'Hoban'

In that case full marks to Richie....

I think Hoban himself was asked earlier in the season. Still sounds wrong though.

monstermag

I'm not quite sure why journalist's in general are reluctant to talk/write about this huge Ronaldo story, obviously l know of the legal restraints but it didn't stop them commenting on the Belfast rugby trial and they went into overdrive reporting on the allegations against judge Kavanaugh in the states. Personally l think legal matters are off limits but something tells me they are holding off because of Ronaldos status in the game. I'm not having a go at OTB here l just find it peculiar that it seems like it's been brushed under the carpet.

CatFromHue

I thought the Belfast trial didn't get much air time until it was over.

Joe mentioned the Ronaldo case today but in the context of it's limited to what they can talk about. I don't think it's anything to do with his status in the game.

monstermag

CatFromHue wrote: »

I thought the Belfast trial didn't get much air time until it was over.

Joe mentioned the Ronaldo case today but in the context of it's limited to what they can talk about. I don't think it's anything to do with his status in the game.

I caught the end of the paper review, it was the journalist he had in that brought up Ronaldo not Joe, I didn't catch his name, he was also surprised by the lack of coverage the story is getting.

diusmr8a504cvk

Always thoroughly enjoy the newspaper headlines and the discussion afterwards, it's kind of a 'too long; don't read' of the world of sport. Enjoyed their interview with Patrick McEleney.

djemba djemba

Has the hard shoulder been extended tonight. Talking about and playing clips of Donald trump news conference during the newsround on off the ball

Tell me how

djemba djemba wrote: »

Has the hard shoulder been extended tonight. Talking about and playing clips of Donald trump news conference during the newsround on off the ball

What was the context? (There is always a context).

Tell me how

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

It turned out that Off The Ball backed the wrong horse. And they have pretty much buried the story since them. Pretty pathetic tbh. They should have fully apologised live on air to the Mayo management.

Cora Staunton on at the moment discussing the events.
Not sure you were right about backing the wrong horse.

Difference of opinion continues to be the most likely reality.

Interesting that this is on on the day Peter Leahy's contract was extended.

Beechwoodspark

Cora not telling the whole story here

OldMrBrennan83

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Cora not telling the whole story here

Won't matter. They're basically her PR handlers at this stage.

anthonyjmaher

She plays the poor mouth better than she plays football. The way she left the "player welfare" phrase dangle out there without any qualification made people think that Leahy may have been abusing one of the girls. This was shameful. She could easily have qualified what exactly the nature of those player welfare issues were with having to name any of the other girls if they were really her concern.

And why did she need to do the interview on the same day that Peter Leahy was ratified for another two years. Coincidence or her trying to get her final word in spite of the decision of the county board?

I'd say Woolly is on the blower to Peter Leahy again now.lol

Tell me how

Patww79 wrote: »

Won't matter. They're basically her PR handlers at this stage.

Well I can see you are maintaining an objective position.

Cora pointed out that the LGFA had not contacted several players including the captain to get their side of the story since this started.
The LGFA confirmed that they had not done so yet. Makes it more interesting about Peter's contract being extended.

Sad to hear Cora pointing out that some relationships which she had had with girls over several years have broken down completely.

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

She plays the poor mouth better than she plays football. The way she left the "player welfare" phrase dangle out there without any qualification made people think that Leahy may have been abusing one of the girls. This was shameful. She could easily have qualified what exactly the nature of those player welfare issues were with having to name any of the other girls if they were really her concern.

And why did she need to do the interview on the same day that Peter Leahy was ratified for another two years. Coincidence or her trying to get her final word in spite of the decision of the county board?

I'd say Woolly is on the blower to Peter Leahy again now.lol

Pretty sure this interview was schedule before Peter's announcement. It could just as easily be suggested that the LGFA announced his contract extension because they heard she was going to be on air.

She did qualify the nature of the welfare issues. She said it affected girls mental health significantly. She said that it was not her place to put the root cause of this in to the public domain which could be understandable also.

deisedude

Tell me how wrote: »

Well I can see you are maintaining an objective position.

Cora pointed out that the LGFA had not contacted several players including the captain to get their side of the story since this started.
The LGFA confirmed that they had not done so yet. Makes it more interesting about Peter's contract being extended.

Sad to hear Cora pointing out that some relationships which she had had with girls over several years have broken down completely.




Pretty sure this interview was schedule before Peter's announcement. It could just as easily be suggested that the LGFA announced his contract extension because they heard she was going to be on air.

She did qualify the nature of the welfare issues. She said it affected girls mental health significantly. She said that it was not her place to put the root cause of this in to the public domain which could be understandable also.

It sounded like a load of bollox. Don't believe a word of it

CatFromHue

I have to say I didn't buy it either.

Tell me how

deisedude wrote: »

It sounded like a load of bollox. Don't believe a word of it

CatFromHue wrote: »

I have to say I didn't buy it either.

Why's that? Genuinely curious.

Imhof Tank

Tell me how wrote: »

Why's that? Genuinely curious.

Please! You are no more "genuinely curious"

You know well what the majority view of this forum is on OTB on this particular subject, and the reasons for that. You are just looking for an excuse to defend your mates on the show now.

Imhof Tank

In defense of the show, there was a Gilesey nugget there tonight when a text about Bobby Moore set him off reminiscing about "the 3 against the 6" match in '73 at Wembly when a combined team from EEC accession states Ireland, UK and Denmark played a combination team of Benelux, West Germany, France and Italy. The one time John played with Moore.

Certainly never heard of that one before, great trivia material.

Tell me how

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Please! You are no more "genuinely curious"

You know well what the majority view of this forum is on OTB on this particular subject, and the reasons for that. You are just looking for an excuse to defend your mates on the show now.

Well explained. The majority view.

Is that how it goes? "What's everyone else saying?" "I'll go with that". So much for original thought.

"My mates on the show....... " yeah, I'm solely responsible for their increased listenership.
At least when I have a view I can defend it.

CatFromHue

Tell me how wrote: »

Why's that? Genuinely curious.

It didn't add up for me that she was very happy to talk about the affect of the situation on some of the players and the failings of certain bodies in dealing with the situation but not what caused it.

Tell me how

CatFromHue wrote: »

It didn't add up for me that she was very happy to talk about the affect of the situation on some of the players and the failings of certain bodies in dealing with the situation but not what caused it.

Is it not reasonable that her club colleagues felt they were suffering as a result of they were bring treated and so when they decided they were going to leave, she did too in support of them. As it was not her issue, she is not putting whatever was the issue in to the public domain.

When she didn't say anything she was accused of being silent. Now when she explains further the logic as she experienced the events, it's discounted as well.
It was said here previously that she was out out because she felt Peter Leahy ignored her as she was in Australia. Turns out that they were in constant communication with what sounds like a fairly comfortable relationship.

anthonyjmaher

Tell me how wrote: »

She did qualify the nature of the welfare issues. She said it affected girls mental health significantly.

She never said that at the time. She said nothing about mental health, she just threw the "player welfare" and "unsafe" phrases out there, which in the light of all this #metoo stuff left Peter Leahy open to all sorts of accusations. It was only when Leahy did the interview with Woolly that he forced them to state their grievances. Grievances which were really just run of the mill football team issues i.e. "I should be playing", "The manager told me I wasn't fit enough", "I don't like the manager's training". Nothing at all that deserved to be labelled as creating an "unsafe" environment.



All she needed to do was to apologise for what she said, for overstating her position. But she really is leaving a mess behind her now as she jets off to Australia again. And it doesn't seem like she wants to take any responsibility for her actions.

Jayesdiem

Tell me how wrote: »

Well I can see you are maintaining an objective position.

Cora pointed out that the LGFA had not contacted several players including the captain to get their side of the story since this started.
The LGFA confirmed that they had not done so yet. Makes it more interesting about Peter's contract being extended.

Sad to hear Cora pointing out that some relationships which she had had with girls over several years have broken down completely.




Pretty sure this interview was schedule before Peter's announcement. It could just as easily be suggested that the LGFA announced his contract extension because they heard she was going to be on air.

She did qualify the nature of the welfare issues. She said it affected girls mental health significantly. She said that it was not her place to put the root cause of this in to the public domain which could be understandable also.

Stop it now. Jesus Christ. You must be connected with that show. You must be.

Tell me how

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

She never said that at the time. She said nothing about mental health, she just threw the "player welfare" and "unsafe" phrases out there, which in the light of all this #metoo stuff left Peter Leahy open to all sorts of accusations. It was only when Leahy did the interview with Woolly that he forced them to state their grievances. Grievances which were really just run of the mill football team issues i.e. "I should be playing", "The manager told me I wasn't fit enough", "I don't like the manager's training". Nothing at all that deserved to be labelled as creating an "unsafe" environment.


All she needed to do was to apologise for what she said, for overstating her position. But she really is leaving a mess behind her now as she jets off to Australia again. And it doesn't seem like she wants to take any responsibility for her actions.

How is it you're taking Peters words at face value but not Cora's?
I've said on this thread previously that both sides are off the mark on this but this she must apologize or the show must apologize has no basis in what's being reported.

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Stop it now. Jesus Christ. You must be connected with that show. You must be.

FFS. Can you challenge my point or if not just put me on ignore. I've nothing to do with the show. Or else just start adding in "fake news" and "biased mainstream media" and complete the stereotype.

deisedude

Tell me how wrote: »

Why's that? Genuinely curious.

If she stated some facts or examples instead of playing the "mental health" card maybe I might believe her.

By the way I don't mean to demean mental health as I do think its a genuine epidemic in this country but in this instance I think its being thrown out there with nothing to back it up other than they didn't like his autocratic management style

anthonyjmaher

Tell me how wrote: »

How is it you're taking Peters words at face value but not Cora's?

I think Peter is vindicated by the testimonials of the girls. What was described as "unsafe" was essentially just usual team squabbles that would be the run of the mill stuff on all sports. And remember in his interview, he was also standing in defence of his backroom staff. The accusation of things being "unsafe" brought the reputations of all the backroom team, including medical people, in to question. None of those people would have stood by him if they were not happy with his treatment of the players.



Lastly, I think there is no way on earth that the Mayo County Board would have given him the job again for two years if they thought there was any truth to the accusation of the situation being "unsafe".

ghostdancer

Tell me how wrote: »

Why's that? Genuinely curious.

I don't believe it because I heard the reasons for it from someone with direct knowledge of the events, and posted about it before the Staunton OTB/Leahy Wooly interviews:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107997976&postcount=6112

that Leahy subsequently came out and pretty much confirmed that version leaves little doubt in my mind that it's much closer to that than Staunton's continuous vague assertions that she won't qualify. The county board, the majority of players, and the majority of staff have stuck with Leahy rather than the star player (and her clubmates), which speaks volumes too IMO.

Tell me how

deisedude wrote: »

If she stated some facts or examples instead of playing the "mental health" card maybe I might believe her.

By the way I don't mean to demean mental health as I do think its a genuine epidemic in this country but in this instance I think its being thrown out there with nothing to back it up other than they didn't like his autocratic management style

I agree that it is a mess without specific examples.
It must be a very difficult environment that all of them are now in I would bet the mental health of many involved (on all sides) has suffered as a result of the way this has played out and that they know the easy thing to do would be to say they were putting it behind them without saying they were wrong but because they aren't doing that, I'm curious why.

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

I think Peter is vindicated by the testimonials of the girls. What was described as "unsafe" was essentially just usual team squabbles that would be the run of the mill stuff on all sports. And remember in his interview, he was also standing in defence of his backroom staff. The accusation of things being "unsafe" brought the reputations of all the backroom team, including medical people, in to question. None of those people would have stood by him if they were not happy with his treatment of the players.

Lastly, I think there is no way on earth that the Mayo County Board would have given him the job again for two years if they thought there was any truth to the accusation of the situation being "unsafe".

Didn't some of his backroom staff walk also though?
Him getting the job again is an indictment of the county board support but the girsl are stating that the county board hasn't engaged with the players who left and so they feel their stories haven't been fully heard.

I would agree that the county board extending his role is a very strong vote of confidence alright but it could be said that they have to support him now given that they did in the summer.
Also, they haven't covered themselves in glory. They released a statement the morning after the girls press conference without having seen the press conference.

ghostdancer wrote: »

I don't believe it because I heard the reasons for it from someone with direct knowledge of the events, and posted about it before the Staunton OTB/Leahy Wooly interviews:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107997976&postcount=6112

that Leahy subsequently came out and pretty much confirmed that version leaves little doubt in my mind that it's much closer to that than Staunton's continuous vague assertions that she won't qualify. The county board, the majority of players, and the majority of staff have stuck with Leahy rather than the star player (and her clubmates), which speaks volumes too IMO.

No disrespect to your contact but are you sure they were entirely objective? Given the way this has played out, I wouldn't be sure of a story I was told being true if it came from someone associated with one side or the other.

But I do think if the 'true version' of events is known in the wider Mayo area and that the girls are entirely unjustified that words from family or friends would have convinced them by now to step back. They are fighting a very lonely fight it seems, afraid of having to apologise seems a weak reason to continue this. Maybe that is the only reason, maybe there is more.

Utopia Parkway

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

She never said that at the time. She said nothing about mental health, she just threw the "player welfare" and "unsafe" phrases out there, which in the light of all this #metoo stuff left Peter Leahy open to all sorts of accusations. It was only when Leahy did the interview with Woolly that he forced them to state their grievances. Grievances which were really just run of the mill football team issues i.e. "I should be playing", "The manager told me I wasn't fit enough", "I don't like the manager's training". Nothing at all that deserved to be labelled as creating an "unsafe" environment.

That's why I find it very hard to believe a word out of her. When they raised the issue of an "unsafe environment" around Leahy's management it allowed rumours to fester of a sexual nature. They were rife in Mayo and even beyond Mayo. They would have heard those rumours like anyone else but they were happy to leave them out there rather than clarify the situation. That is absolutely scurrilous behavior. It was only when Leahy was forced to defend himself in public that they backtracked a little.

Muscles Schultz

Who’s that pox on the show taking about markets and odds all the time?

For Forks Sake

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Who’s that pox on the show taking about markets and odds all the time?

Leon Blanche from Boylesports. Permanent fixture around the place in spite of the regular OTB 'evils of gambling' preaching :rolleyes:

Diabhal Beag

Actually happened to tune in for that particular segment and they gave the most half-hearted disclaimer beforehand to the point where my mate was in tears laughing. It's obviously procedure and required for all betting-related discussion/advertisement but it makes Off the Ball look like such hypocrites with there better than thou approach.

However the Second Captains lads coverage of horse-racing back in the day was nearly entirely betting related too.

Tell me how

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Actually happened to tune in for that particular segment and they gave the most half-hearted disclaimer beforehand to the point where my mate was in tears laughing. It's obviously procedure and required for all betting-related discussion/advertisement but it makes Off the Ball look like such hypocrites with there better than thou approach.

However the Second Captains lads coverage of horse-racing back in the day was nearly entirely betting related too.

So much sport is intertwined with gambling now.
Wonder in ten years will it be the same or will it go the way if tobacco sponsorship in motor sport.

Ol' Donie

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Actually happened to tune in for that particular segment and they gave the most half-hearted disclaimer beforehand to the point where my mate was in tears laughing. It's obviously procedure and required for all betting-related discussion/advertisement but it makes Off the Ball look like such hypocrites with there better than thou approach.

However the Second Captains lads coverage of horse-racing back in the day was nearly entirely betting related too.

That's because horse racing exists solely for the purpose of betting.

Actual sports can exist perfectly fine with literally zero input from these parasites.

Jayesdiem

Ol' Donie wrote: »

That's because horse racing exists solely for the purpose of betting.

Actual sports can exist perfectly fine with literally zero input from these parasites.

I’m not anti betting myself but I think you are dead right on both counts there.

MattressRick

Another rugby roadshow tonight. A coup to get Paul o Connell and I know Drico helps to get these guys on board (or maybe Alan Quinlan worked his magic for this due to working in newstalk?) But im pig sick of O Driscoll being on every single one of these roadshows now. The guy ain't funny. He has something in common there with the wife.

viboy

Roadshows in general are absolute muck. I simply can't take the pointless "banter" that dominates these. Case in point yesterday some inane drivel about buying a coffee and not being recognized seemed to go on for an age.

More of the same tonight as far as I can tell.

Between the C-team (Andrews, Ward) on Tuesday and yesterdays roadshow repeat it's been a bad week for Off the Ball as far as I'm concerned.

MattressRick wrote: »

Another rugby roadshow tonight. A coup to get Paul o Connell and I know Drico helps to get these guys on board (or maybe Alan Quinlan worked his magic for this due to working in newstalk?) But im pig sick of O Driscoll being on every single one of these roadshows now. The guy ain't funny. He has something in common there with the wife.

Tell me how

viboy wrote: »

Roadshows in general are absolute muck. I simply can't take the pointless "banter" that dominates these. Case in point yesterday some inane drivel about buying a coffee and not being recognized seemed to go on for an age.

More of the same tonight as far as I can tell.

Between the C-team (Andrews, Ward) on Tuesday and yesterdays roadshow repeat it's been a bad week for Off the Ball as far as I'm concerned.

Has anyone here ever been to one? There have been so many of them that at this stage there must be people who have gone to multiple ones.

I dislike them and don't tune in to them when they are on. If they took the same people and put them in the studio and let them talk I'd listen but when they are trying to be entertainers first and pundits second it doesn't work in my view.

I did hear Gary Neville on a Second Captains roadshow and that was interesting as he is worth listening to and he had a bit of a pop at ken Early so that put a bit of a vibe around it.

howareyakid

Tell me how wrote: »

Has anyone here ever been to one? There have been so many of them that at this stage there must be people who have gone to multiple ones.

I dislike them and don't tune in to them when they are on. If they took the same people and put them in the studio and let them talk I'd listen but when they are trying to be entertainers first and pundits second it doesn't work in my view.

I did hear Gary Neville on a Second Captains roadshow and that was interesting as he is worth listening to and he had a bit of a pop at ken Early so that put a bit of a vibe around it.

That Gary Neville podcast was brilliant but I think being in a roadshow capacity was a contributing factor. He is a funny guy and his back and forth with Ken Early was very humourous but it wouldn't have been the same if it wasn't in front of a live audience. I think there is a place for roadshows. There can be good banter when they get the right combinations of people but there can be very frank discussions also.

NIMAN

howareyakid wrote: »

That Gary Neville podcast was brilliant but I think being in a roadshow capacity was a contributing factor. He is a funny guy and his back and forth with Ken Early was very humourous but it wouldn't have been the same if it wasn't in front of a live audience. I think there is a place for roadshows. There can be good banter when they get the right combinations of people but there can be very frank discussions also.

You must have seen Valencia under him!

They were a comedy act.

howareyakid

NIMAN wrote: »

You must have seen Valencia under him!

They were a comedy act.

There’s no denying his foray into management was disasterous but he is still one of the best pundits around in my opinion and he can be witty at times. That’s all!

NIMAN

howareyakid wrote: »

There’s no denying his foray into management was disasterous but he is still one of the best pundits around in my opinion and he can be witty at times. That’s all!

I'd actually agree with you, although he isn't up against much.

The vast majority of pundits on Irish and British TV are shocking.