RTÉ admits paying Tubridy €345,000 more than declared

yep..remove him..let this die down..slowly reintroduce, he might start covering for a few shows when People on leave, test the water and gradually feed back in. it will happen, unfortunately.

Well NK did say yesterday that if someone on air in a slot started dropping listenership over the course of a few JNLRs, they’d have to realise their job was in danger. Take him at his word. Put Tubs back on air. See the drop in JNLR performance and the loss of advertising revenue as he has to be advertiser toxic at this point. Then invite him to jog on at the end of his contract or before if there’s a performance clause. Also let him back to work with all the ‘good friends’ he has in RTE. As a published political author he should be more than aware of the mantra that applies to polical careers all ending in failure.

They did renegotiate, the older staff kept theirs and let the younger public and civil servants take the brunt so a very similar situation really.....for over a decade people have been on the single payer system based on overall life earnings rather than end of career earnings. Anyone on this pension will be lucky to see what they put in but also isn't free to use that money elsewhere.

It's very hard to know the truth of why this arrangement came into existence snd thsta the crux.......hopefully the emails will elucidate this. I'm not a fan of RT, never have been but I don't see him as the real problem, just a symptom. There are contractors in many walks of life who negotiate huge deals compared to standard workers in the same job, but the added risk and market value is what's being negotiated. This is not the case in RTE, but that's an RTE problem, pillorying RT won't fix anything, it's putting someone in the stocks cos it makes us feel better.

A certain section of RTs radio and TV audience seem to be oblivious to what has gone on between NK,RT, and RTE. You have the devoted listener and viewer who will always believe that RT is the golden boy and can do no wrong. Particularly after entertaining the country durning the pamdemic.

Whether there are enough loyal listeners and TV viewers out there to justify RT returning to the airwaves remains to be seen. Also going by the reaction of the ground floor staff that keeping RTE a float durning this historic crisis it seems like the have lost total trust in him. a d who can blame them.

For three professionals the way this was handled is out of this world - and these three professionals had well paid solicitors , acccountants, lawyers, , etc behind them. iMO they all had to collude For the payment to go through the way it did.

This was a contract for services for serious money and all contracts - no matter between who and no matter about what would have relevant basic information and as in this case such as:-

• the parties involved - Renault and RT or his company
• the nature of the work giving details/ of the work to be carried out, location, work duration, props needed and other relevant details
• who is going to carry out the work - in this case RT
• agreed cost - vat being specified
• how and when payment was to be made eg in instalments and before or after work was carried out
• specific details as to who payment was to be made - companies have official names and trade names
• the method of transfer - eg online bank transfer- and stating bank code

i am not a lawyer, accountant or anything of that nature. I was just involved in a very, very, very small company - probably one fifth the size of PK’s - that had access to some public funds and the above points would have been seriously considered for inclusion in such a contract. The above are not thoughts after the ‘horse has bolted’ . I would have come up withthe same points years ago. They would be standard points for anyone with a Primary Cert from national school and a few years experience ‘ in the trade’

They’re interesting alright. I had no idea sponsorship could mean picking up the tab for the entire show. My impression always was that if a show cost 100,000 to produce, a sponsor deal would pump 20,000-30,000 in to offset the initial cost with sales to tv then making a profit for the producers.

It does explain some of the awful dross on prime time RTE over the past few years.

I may have missed it but did they have any other detail about what prompted those directions from RTE?

As in, was there an email from NK asking for direction on payments from Renault and RTE just gave him those instructions or was it something else showing that NK was aware that the payment would come through RTE. Or did RTE send those instructions without any prompting from NK?

The context would go a long way to determining how involved NK actually was.

How did Gay Byrne's sensible 2 hour slot each weekday morning get replaced with Tubridy's show just being 1 hour? I can't find any example on Irish or UK radio of a stations 'star' having a 1 hour show in the morning.

For what happened to happen there had to be collusion by them all including RT. Even when RT/PK ‘spotted’ the annual payment for service of employment it was raised by them internally With all those ‘in the know’ only

Time will tell.

Sure find us the posts where you tell us what you think of Tubridy. You seem pretty free with your opinions on other targets.

Amazing how you will put the boot into anyone and everyone but not Tubridy or NK.

Pretty obvious agenda being played out here.

Its not whataboutry. I am calling out hypocrisy. You just don't like the this being pointed and the implications if your point was applied to everyone.

We have one rule for RT and a completely different rule for everyone else. My point is that legally RT has done nothing wrong. Grant Thornton have also said that. From my point of view RT and NT when and did what every other employee/employee representative/union does. RTE agreed to a salary that RT is unlikely to gave got anywhere else. That was a bad decision but it was RTEs fault not RT or NTs.

You brought up that RT should not have agreed to deal because it was unsustainable ie employees/agents/unions/etc should not agree deals with employers that they know are unsustainable. With my example I have taken your point at face value assuming you actually meant it and teased out the implications of it.

Anyone in the public sector who agrees a deal with the government that includes a defined benefit pension should know its unsustainable. There had been enough news about it. If not the employee their union (ie the role of NK for RT) know its an unsustainable agreement at least long term. Again warning about the pension timebomb are nothing new. The pension situation is very clear cut most situations including RT are/were not as clear cut. Remember in RT case his employer was capable of paying him a higher salary before, and before you factor in the inflation on the real money value of his salary. So his salary in the 00s was even higher in today's money.

So from the sounds of it you apply one standard to RT and everyone else is subject to a lesser standard for some reason.

I think Bakhurst indicated that consultation with staff would be part of the decision on RT's future in RTE.

Byrne did LLS, 2 hour radio show, and numerous other programs. A true pro.