150KTubs - future career in Virgin Radio and other soulful pursuits **Mod: Read OP**

That Evoke article is a reprint (syndication, I guess) of the Mail On Sunday article. The dinner with the Doyles features, but he obviously forgot to take a selfie, because it's strangely illustrated with a picture of Craig and Holly Willoughby.

In all fairness, he's going to have to do better than a 6 hour train journey to Cornwall where he doesn't even look out the window, only to come back early after having done nothing but eat a bacon sandwich and have a quick walk around town, to keep this column going. It's very poor.

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.

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.

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.

but what are you doing here then?

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.

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??

Same registrant ( Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Limited )for the domain names.

Regards...jmcc

Hahaha