|
Brolly's recent piece on Sky, the GAA and the cultural hijacking taking place was very interesting reading. He makes some very good points. Not least just how cheaply the association lets itself gets sold for.
The story about the GPA not allowing a comic do Brolly or Colm O'Rourke impressions at one of their functions was a bit mad also.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 09/01/2018 19:58:40
2067575
Link
1
|
|
Thought long and hard about posting as I thought it was a savage read but as it was written by Brolly I didn't see the point as the content is less likely to be discussed , much more likely the author, from my point it reminds me of when I was an area manager in retail and had to do a thesis on Walmart , in a nutshell they would set up in an area in America undersell everyone and when they had run everyone out of business and had the monopoly they were then in a position to squeeze the consumer, shortsided consumer long term planning by a shark , very much the business model of SKY
Damothedub (Dublin) - Posts: 5193 - 09/01/2018 20:15:23
2067576
Link
1
|
|
He highlights a very real issue. Does the association go down the money route or start rowing back and become more social and amature again. There's no easy answer. I would like to see the standards of play stay high but there should be room for a social care aspect...room for everybody.
The problem I have with Brolly is that hed like the association to be some left wing socialist organisation with republican/gaelic speaking domination.( I do salute his highlighting of the psni officers horrendous treatment in Northern Ireland.) That would be a mistake. Theres room for that wing but it has to be balanced by a majority more focused on sport and less political. Keep the broad umbrella.
PeggyShippen (Limerick) - Posts: 300 - 09/01/2018 21:02:22
2067583
Link
0
|
|
It was an excellent article by Brolly to be fair. Its not Sky who are the enemy, that's their business model. The enemy are those at the top of the GAA who want to be able to say how great they are for bringing in more money etc.
Also the GPA have become disconnected from their roots and pay their employees massive salaries to do f**k all
Onfor15 (Wexford) - Posts: 524 - 09/01/2018 21:14:35
2067584
Link
0
|
|
Interesting points by Joe but you can't compare the basketball takeover by Nike in a market the size of the US and Sky's venture into GAA in tiny Ireland.
The GAA (sadly) will never be as big as the NBA. The market for GAA expansion is relatively small.
yew_tree (Mayo) - Posts: 11227 - 09/01/2018 21:42:43
2067589
Link
0
|
|
Replying To yew_tree: "Interesting points by Joe but you can't compare the basketball takeover by Nike in a market the size of the US and Sky's venture into GAA in tiny Ireland.
The GAA (sadly) will never be as big as the NBA. The market for GAA expansion is relatively small." Yew your right in pointing out the size and scope and also your right in that comparisons with basketball are a huge jump, but Brollys point of control and identity is very relevant, much as it kills me to say it the sight of Con O Callaghan doing the deed and when he's gone the 100 kids are left with the t shirts , what was it the yanks called it in Vietnam winning hearts and minds
Damothedub (Dublin) - Posts: 5193 - 09/01/2018 22:24:05
2067594
Link
0
|
|
Excellent article. We need to end foreign interference in our national games before it is too late
11jm11 (Kildare) - Posts: 365 - 09/01/2018 23:07:07
2067598
Link
1
|
|
Replying To 11jm11: "Excellent article. We need to end foreign interference in our national games before it is too late" You do realise it's sky IRELAND who bought this, a subsidiary of bskyb, that's like saying intel should get out of kilcock as it's not a Irish company, apart from Rachel , who works on other sky programs, they only employ Irish people, I know one of the engineers who works on the gaa for sky, it's lucrative to him and his family, when he couldn't get a job with rte (as it's a who you know club) or tv3 however sky are paying for his mortgage with his employment, how would joes socialism republican agenda sort him out???
royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 10/01/2018 10:09:31
2067615
Link
1
|
|
I often disagree with Brolly's antics, particularly his personal abuse of amateur athletes and teams, his disclosure of clearly private conversations with GAA athletes and his assumption of the GAA everyman persona. However, that doesn't mean that he's incapable of incisive analysis every now and again.
I do think he has a point concerning the ongoing commercialisation and elitism of gaelic games. Commercial actors, particularly the banks, are using the emotional connections that many Irish people have with gaelic games to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the public. Meanwhile, they remain free to remove the roofs from the heads of hundreds, if not thousands of Irish citizens, in the midst of a homelessness crisis and another housing bubble, from which they handsomely profit.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/reckless-behaviour-by-bankers-to-be-criminalised-36473601.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/aib-sues-more-than-twice-as-many-borrowers-as-bank-of-ireland-1.3350162?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Ffinancial-services%2Faib-sues-more-than-twice-as-many-borrowers-as-bank-of-ireland-1.3350162
Ten years ago, would anyone have foreseen a situation in which games in the latter stages of the All-Ireland series would not be carried on terrestrial channels in Ireland? How long before this situation is replicated with earlier championship games? After all, I remember a time (mid-late 1990s) when one subscription to Sky would get you all of the Premier League games in England. Then, slowly, the changes starting coming in. In the early 2000s, you then needed to subscribe to Sky Sports plus a service called Premiership Plus, for certain fixtures. A few years later, the FA sold the rights to multiple channels, meaning that you needed to subscribe not just to Sky Sports, but also to BT and ESPN if you wanted to see all the games. An associated huge increase in the cost of season tickets at many clubs now means that the working classes (who kept football going during the bad years, when it was once, infamously, described as "a slum sport in slum stadiums") can't afford to see live soccer on a regular basis.
Do we really want to go down this road? One of the very special things about gaelic games is the accessibility of the games, and its top athletes.
As far as GAA HQ goes, I believe that they no longer really care about anything that doesn't make them money. Take the club situation in Ireland, for example. Club players make up, what? 95% of all GAA players. There has been a crisis in the GAA calendar for several years now, whereupon the vast majority of players play the most important fixtures in terrible conditions (often in a negligently-short space of time) all to accommodate a lucrative, but tiny minority of players. And what is Croke Park's answer to this? Create more inter-county fixtures at the peak of the season, when pitches are at their best, in order to do what? Make more money.
I have seen it in the dealings of senior GAA personnel with overseas units- they'll fly out for for a Pan-European/Pan Asian/Australasian games (minimum four star accommodation, to be borne by the hosting club or international county board), give us a speech and a pat on the head, and then disappear again, until there's an election at Congress and someone needs our votes. Nigh-on 800 people flew in thousands of kilometres to play in the World Games in Dublin last year, and yet I heard stories of people being charged the guts of 50 quid for chicken curry at the post-tournament dinner, which many had to eat standing up due to a lack of seats.
It seems to me that the GAA hierarchy are floating further adrift from many of the rank and file members, as the recent establishment of the club players' association shows.
Gleebo (Mayo) - Posts: 2208 - 10/01/2018 10:18:14
2067616
Link
5
|
|
Replying To royaldunne: "You do realise it's sky IRELAND who bought this, a subsidiary of bskyb, that's like saying intel should get out of kilcock as it's not a Irish company, apart from Rachel , who works on other sky programs, they only employ Irish people, I know one of the engineers who works on the gaa for sky, it's lucrative to him and his family, when he couldn't get a job with rte (as it's a who you know club) or tv3 however sky are paying for his mortgage with his employment, how would joes socialism republican agenda sort him out???" listening to Joe on a recent podcast with Eamon Dunphy he made comments like he has no interest in politics because there isn't any money in it, and he also said he was a republican before he entered Trinity but was essentially cured when he graduated, pure nonsense stuff really, hardly a "socialist republican". I like Joe but he argues against himself too much, as soon as you agree with him he goes bananas.
suckvalleypaddy (Galway) - Posts: 1667 - 10/01/2018 10:45:52
2067623
Link
1
|
|
I've just read the article and think it's the greatest piece of sensationalist pap since, well, Brolly's last article. This isn't journalism - it's just ranting against a perceived machine. When the "journalist" uses melodramatic phrases like "Make no mistake, the end game is upon us", it's pretty hard to take him seriously. Nevertheless, I finished the article. I've tried to sum up this based on his ire:
i) The GAA is selling its identity to big corporations.
ii) Big corporations are bad. The banks lend money and take back stuff if you can't pay back what they lent you.
iii) Branding 101: Branding campaigns via sponsorship involves association with the sponsored party.
iv) Elite players can be "bought" like mercenaries by these bad corporations.
v) Running a commercial enterprise can involve causing hurt to some people, which is bad.
vi) The GAA sell the games as a product. This is bad because it encourages big corporations to buy. (Whether the games are marketed as such to gain maximum revenue is not discussed).
vii) Sky, with 0.0015% of AI viewing figures are going the same way as Nike, the sponsor of the NBA (not sure how a sponsor and viewing provider are comparable in this instance).
viii) Advertising 101: Use recognisable sports players to sell the brand / games to kids.
ix) Sending these sports players to schools is a branding exercise. It (presumably) does not have any social benefit, such as increasing youth interest etc. Sky should be chastised for their €3m investment, which does nothing for clubs (presumably they should provide money for no return?).
x) Branding 101b: Part of branding is prominent display of logos. Overuse of logos is (somehow) bad.
xi) Kids should be able to do more advanced drills than hand passing, kicking and shooting.
xii) Sky exist to sell their product, just like Nike. They are both good at this.
xiii) The GPA are sensitive to criticism (not sure where this fits into the rest of the narrative).
xiv) Sky are immune from criticism (despite several people railing against PPV but not considering several people favourably comparing Sky's output to that of RTE, their main "competitor").
xiv) "Sky will in time become the sole provider of live inter-county GAA" (despite this being unconstitutional).
For a lurid, speculative article full of hyperbole and straw man arguments that anger up the blood, I'd give this an A+
For a coherent argument based on objectively examining the rationales and benefits to both sponsor / provider and the GAA, I'd have to give it a D-
Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 567 - 10/01/2018 17:49:35
2067677
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Kurt_Angle: "I've just read the article and think it's the greatest piece of sensationalist pap since, well, Brolly's last article. This isn't journalism - it's just ranting against a perceived machine. When the "journalist" uses melodramatic phrases like "Make no mistake, the end game is upon us", it's pretty hard to take him seriously. Nevertheless, I finished the article. I've tried to sum up this based on his ire:
i) The GAA is selling its identity to big corporations.
ii) Big corporations are bad. The banks lend money and take back stuff if you can't pay back what they lent you.
iii) Branding 101: Branding campaigns via sponsorship involves association with the sponsored party.
iv) Elite players can be "bought" like mercenaries by these bad corporations.
v) Running a commercial enterprise can involve causing hurt to some people, which is bad.
vi) The GAA sell the games as a product. This is bad because it encourages big corporations to buy. (Whether the games are marketed as such to gain maximum revenue is not discussed).
vii) Sky, with 0.0015% of AI viewing figures are going the same way as Nike, the sponsor of the NBA (not sure how a sponsor and viewing provider are comparable in this instance).
viii) Advertising 101: Use recognisable sports players to sell the brand / games to kids.
ix) Sending these sports players to schools is a branding exercise. It (presumably) does not have any social benefit, such as increasing youth interest etc. Sky should be chastised for their €3m investment, which does nothing for clubs (presumably they should provide money for no return?).
x) Branding 101b: Part of branding is prominent display of logos. Overuse of logos is (somehow) bad.
xi) Kids should be able to do more advanced drills than hand passing, kicking and shooting.
xii) Sky exist to sell their product, just like Nike. They are both good at this.
xiii) The GPA are sensitive to criticism (not sure where this fits into the rest of the narrative).
xiv) Sky are immune from criticism (despite several people railing against PPV but not considering several people favourably comparing Sky's output to that of RTE, their main "competitor").
xiv) "Sky will in time become the sole provider of live inter-county GAA" (despite this being unconstitutional).
For a lurid, speculative article full of hyperbole and straw man arguments that anger up the blood, I'd give this an A+
For a coherent argument based on objectively examining the rationales and benefits to both sponsor / provider and the GAA, I'd have to give it a D-" Excellent post. Brolly is writing BS . And what's unusual about that? Perhaps some people are overlooking a very important aspect, brolly has a vested interest in rte covering gaa football as he is paid by them. Now as a lawyer I'm sure he has plenty of twine but still.
royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 10/01/2018 19:03:00
2067688
Link
0
|
|
Not impressed by the article at all. Brolly is like King Canute here trying to beat back the waves. It is not a coherent vision. The world of sport has changed a lot in the last 30 years and either you ride the waves of you sink in them and trying to beat them back doesn't work. Times have changed and gone are the days when the GAA had sole proprietary on the interests of the youth. For better or worse we have moved on from Micko's day. It is a crowded marketplace today with many competing interests and the GAA has to be out there marketing itself and promoting its games as hard as the rest of them. It is not all about making money -- in fact I would argue that's one of the lesser aims of it -- it is about keeping the brand (or to use his word -- the product) to the forefront of people's minds. The alternative is for the GAA to stay out of the marketplace altogether and surrender entirely to the professional sports (I.e. soccer and rugby) who are very adept at capturing the hearts and minds of young people.
I do however agree with Brolly's assessment of the GPA. And he is correct about the Fenway Classic and the motivation behind it. We will probably see more ventures like this being promoted by the GPA with a view to maximising commercial opportunities so that eventually "pay for play" becomes feasible.
PoolSturgeon (Galway) - Posts: 1902 - 10/01/2018 19:17:32
2067691
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Kurt_Angle: "I've just read the article and think it's the greatest piece of sensationalist pap since, well, Brolly's last article. This isn't journalism - it's just ranting against a perceived machine. When the "journalist" uses melodramatic phrases like "Make no mistake, the end game is upon us", it's pretty hard to take him seriously. Nevertheless, I finished the article. I've tried to sum up this based on his ire:
i) The GAA is selling its identity to big corporations.
ii) Big corporations are bad. The banks lend money and take back stuff if you can't pay back what they lent you.
iii) Branding 101: Branding campaigns via sponsorship involves association with the sponsored party.
iv) Elite players can be "bought" like mercenaries by these bad corporations.
v) Running a commercial enterprise can involve causing hurt to some people, which is bad.
vi) The GAA sell the games as a product. This is bad because it encourages big corporations to buy. (Whether the games are marketed as such to gain maximum revenue is not discussed).
vii) Sky, with 0.0015% of AI viewing figures are going the same way as Nike, the sponsor of the NBA (not sure how a sponsor and viewing provider are comparable in this instance).
viii) Advertising 101: Use recognisable sports players to sell the brand / games to kids.
ix) Sending these sports players to schools is a branding exercise. It (presumably) does not have any social benefit, such as increasing youth interest etc. Sky should be chastised for their €3m investment, which does nothing for clubs (presumably they should provide money for no return?).
x) Branding 101b: Part of branding is prominent display of logos. Overuse of logos is (somehow) bad.
xi) Kids should be able to do more advanced drills than hand passing, kicking and shooting.
xii) Sky exist to sell their product, just like Nike. They are both good at this.
xiii) The GPA are sensitive to criticism (not sure where this fits into the rest of the narrative).
xiv) Sky are immune from criticism (despite several people railing against PPV but not considering several people favourably comparing Sky's output to that of RTE, their main "competitor").
xiv) "Sky will in time become the sole provider of live inter-county GAA" (despite this being unconstitutional).
For a lurid, speculative article full of hyperbole and straw man arguments that anger up the blood, I'd give this an A+
For a coherent argument based on objectively examining the rationales and benefits to both sponsor / provider and the GAA, I'd have to give it a D-" Yeah you know it is Joe Brolly so it's never going to be a succinct piece.
He's a more emotional rather than rational thinker also.
Amongst the piece there are some proper points though.
Is the association in control of their corporate interests or are they in control of the association.
I've mentioned this before in relation to the sky deal. It seems short sighted. The GAA get money up front to sell their matches and it all looks rosy, sponsorship goes up in the accounts, everything must be good. Well no not necessarily. If you're getting roughly 1/10th of the number of viewers as would watch on terrestrial television then what does that do to the exposure and future potential for the sport.
Are Sky doing all this out of the goodness of their heart. No definitely not. The are making money from it. That money by and large will come from ordinary Gaels. That money could be going into the association at a different level. Ie the clubs. The money will filter down somewhat but maybe not enough. You also do have the GPA taking their slice.
These aren't necessarily bad things. Players do deserve to get some reward for their time, the increased professionalism has probably raised the game to a higher standard.
The big thing is, does the GAA have a grip on what's going on.
I am not so sure.
As for it being unconstitutional for all games to be moved from terrestrial television, this can change. Just as pay tv wasn't allowed not so long ago.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 10/01/2018 19:28:57
2067694
Link
0
|
|
Replying To royaldunne: " Replying To Kurt_Angle: "I've just read the article and think it's the greatest piece of sensationalist pap since, well, Brolly's last article. This isn't journalism - it's just ranting against a perceived machine. When the "journalist" uses melodramatic phrases like "Make no mistake, the end game is upon us", it's pretty hard to take him seriously. Nevertheless, I finished the article. I've tried to sum up this based on his ire:
i) The GAA is selling its identity to big corporations.
ii) Big corporations are bad. The banks lend money and take back stuff if you can't pay back what they lent you.
iii) Branding 101: Branding campaigns via sponsorship involves association with the sponsored party.
iv) Elite players can be "bought" like mercenaries by these bad corporations.
v) Running a commercial enterprise can involve causing hurt to some people, which is bad.
vi) The GAA sell the games as a product. This is bad because it encourages big corporations to buy. (Whether the games are marketed as such to gain maximum revenue is not discussed).
vii) Sky, with 0.0015% of AI viewing figures are going the same way as Nike, the sponsor of the NBA (not sure how a sponsor and viewing provider are comparable in this instance).
viii) Advertising 101: Use recognisable sports players to sell the brand / games to kids.
ix) Sending these sports players to schools is a branding exercise. It (presumably) does not have any social benefit, such as increasing youth interest etc. Sky should be chastised for their €3m investment, which does nothing for clubs (presumably they should provide money for no return?).
x) Branding 101b: Part of branding is prominent display of logos. Overuse of logos is (somehow) bad.
xi) Kids should be able to do more advanced drills than hand passing, kicking and shooting.
xii) Sky exist to sell their product, just like Nike. They are both good at this.
xiii) The GPA are sensitive to criticism (not sure where this fits into the rest of the narrative).
xiv) Sky are immune from criticism (despite several people railing against PPV but not considering several people favourably comparing Sky's output to that of RTE, their main "competitor").
xiv) "Sky will in time become the sole provider of live inter-county GAA" (despite this being unconstitutional).
For a lurid, speculative article full of hyperbole and straw man arguments that anger up the blood, I'd give this an A+
For a coherent argument based on objectively examining the rationales and benefits to both sponsor / provider and the GAA, I'd have to give it a D-" Excellent post. Brolly is writing BS . And what's unusual about that? Perhaps some people are overlooking a very important aspect, brolly has a vested interest in rte covering gaa football as he is paid by them. Now as a lawyer I'm sure he has plenty of twine but still."
essmac (Tyrone) - Posts: 1141 - 10/01/2018 20:02:38
2067699
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Whammo86: " Replying To Kurt_Angle: "I've just read the article and think it's the greatest piece of sensationalist pap since, well, Brolly's last article. This isn't journalism - it's just ranting against a perceived machine. When the "journalist" uses melodramatic phrases like "Make no mistake, the end game is upon us", it's pretty hard to take him seriously. Nevertheless, I finished the article. I've tried to sum up this based on his ire:
i) The GAA is selling its identity to big corporations.
ii) Big corporations are bad. The banks lend money and take back stuff if you can't pay back what they lent you.
iii) Branding 101: Branding campaigns via sponsorship involves association with the sponsored party.
iv) Elite players can be "bought" like mercenaries by these bad corporations.
v) Running a commercial enterprise can involve causing hurt to some people, which is bad.
vi) The GAA sell the games as a product. This is bad because it encourages big corporations to buy. (Whether the games are marketed as such to gain maximum revenue is not discussed).
vii) Sky, with 0.0015% of AI viewing figures are going the same way as Nike, the sponsor of the NBA (not sure how a sponsor and viewing provider are comparable in this instance).
viii) Advertising 101: Use recognisable sports players to sell the brand / games to kids.
ix) Sending these sports players to schools is a branding exercise. It (presumably) does not have any social benefit, such as increasing youth interest etc. Sky should be chastised for their €3m investment, which does nothing for clubs (presumably they should provide money for no return?).
x) Branding 101b: Part of branding is prominent display of logos. Overuse of logos is (somehow) bad.
xi) Kids should be able to do more advanced drills than hand passing, kicking and shooting.
xii) Sky exist to sell their product, just like Nike. They are both good at this.
xiii) The GPA are sensitive to criticism (not sure where this fits into the rest of the narrative).
xiv) Sky are immune from criticism (despite several people railing against PPV but not considering several people favourably comparing Sky's output to that of RTE, their main "competitor").
xiv) "Sky will in time become the sole provider of live inter-county GAA" (despite this being unconstitutional).
For a lurid, speculative article full of hyperbole and straw man arguments that anger up the blood, I'd give this an A+
For a coherent argument based on objectively examining the rationales and benefits to both sponsor / provider and the GAA, I'd have to give it a D-" Yeah you know it is Joe Brolly so it's never going to be a succinct piece. He's a more emotional rather than rational thinker also. Amongst the piece there are some proper points though. Is the association in control of their corporate interests or are they in control of the association. I've mentioned this before in relation to the sky deal. It seems short sighted. The GAA get money up front to sell their matches and it all looks rosy, sponsorship goes up in the accounts, everything must be good. Well no not necessarily. If you're getting roughly 1/10th of the number of viewers as would watch on terrestrial television then what does that do to the exposure and future potential for the sport. Are Sky doing all this out of the goodness of their heart. No definitely not. The are making money from it. That money by and large will come from ordinary Gaels. That money could be going into the association at a different level. Ie the clubs. The money will filter down somewhat but maybe not enough. You also do have the GPA taking their slice. These aren't necessarily bad things. Players do deserve to get some reward for their time, the increased professionalism has probably raised the game to a higher standard. The big thing is, does the GAA have a grip on what's going on. I am not so sure. As for it being unconstitutional for all games to be moved from terrestrial television, this can change. Just as pay tv wasn't allowed not so long ago."
Here's a thought what if rte or virgin media corporation (tv3) actually paid more than sky for the games. Know that might seem like radical thinking but
royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 10/01/2018 21:16:49
2067710
Link
0
|
|
Well done Joe......but you're about 3 or 4 years too late. Go back to 2013/14 and I was saying exactly this but was told I was being pessimistic and a gloom merchant. SKY are a corporate organisation who don't do charity, they only want a financial return and more dishes sold.
SKY have targeted the GAA with the ultimate aim of being the sole broadcaster of Gaelic Games in Ireland AND Britain. I predicted that SKY were looking at Dublin's success and Golden Calf dollars and licking their lips; that's why SKY are using young Dublin players now in their strategy and I wouldn't be surprised if SKY eventually launch a Dublin only pay per view channel in cooperation with the GAA and Dublin.
The Sunday Game will also eventually be blanked out in the North, as Ireland soccer games are, and people will have to subscribe to satellite TV to watch SKY's coverage of Gaelic Games. RTE and the GAA will tut, tut, look the other way and hide behind the 'broadcasting rights' excuse as they did with the soccer. The GAA sold it's soul to the corporate devil long ago but hey so long as the Dubs win every year and they, the GAA and SKY reap the rewards shhurrrre isn't life grand?
Ulsterman (Antrim) - Posts: 9696 - 10/01/2018 22:43:15
2067729
Link
0
|
|
Replying To royaldunne: " Replying To Whammo86: "[quote=Kurt_Angle: "I've just read the article and think it's the greatest piece of sensationalist pap since, well, Brolly's last article. This isn't journalism - it's just ranting against a perceived machine. When the "journalist" uses melodramatic phrases like "Make no mistake, the end game is upon us", it's pretty hard to take him seriously. Nevertheless, I finished the article. I've tried to sum up this based on his ire:
i) The GAA is selling its identity to big corporations.
ii) Big corporations are bad. The banks lend money and take back stuff if you can't pay back what they lent you.
iii) Branding 101: Branding campaigns via sponsorship involves association with the sponsored party.
iv) Elite players can be "bought" like mercenaries by these bad corporations.
v) Running a commercial enterprise can involve causing hurt to some people, which is bad.
vi) The GAA sell the games as a product. This is bad because it encourages big corporations to buy. (Whether the games are marketed as such to gain maximum revenue is not discussed).
vii) Sky, with 0.0015% of AI viewing figures are going the same way as Nike, the sponsor of the NBA (not sure how a sponsor and viewing provider are comparable in this instance).
viii) Advertising 101: Use recognisable sports players to sell the brand / games to kids.
ix) Sending these sports players to schools is a branding exercise. It (presumably) does not have any social benefit, such as increasing youth interest etc. Sky should be chastised for their €3m investment, which does nothing for clubs (presumably they should provide money for no return?).
x) Branding 101b: Part of branding is prominent display of logos. Overuse of logos is (somehow) bad.
xi) Kids should be able to do more advanced drills than hand passing, kicking and shooting.
xii) Sky exist to sell their product, just like Nike. They are both good at this.
xiii) The GPA are sensitive to criticism (not sure where this fits into the rest of the narrative).
xiv) Sky are immune from criticism (despite several people railing against PPV but not considering several people favourably comparing Sky's output to that of RTE, their main "competitor").
xiv) "Sky will in time become the sole provider of live inter-county GAA" (despite this being unconstitutional).
For a lurid, speculative article full of hyperbole and straw man arguments that anger up the blood, I'd give this an A+
For a coherent argument based on objectively examining the rationales and benefits to both sponsor / provider and the GAA, I'd have to give it a D-" Yeah you know it is Joe Brolly so it's never going to be a succinct piece. He's a more emotional rather than rational thinker also. Amongst the piece there are some proper points though. Is the association in control of their corporate interests or are they in control of the association. I've mentioned this before in relation to the sky deal. It seems short sighted. The GAA get money up front to sell their matches and it all looks rosy, sponsorship goes up in the accounts, everything must be good. Well no not necessarily. If you're getting roughly 1/10th of the number of viewers as would watch on terrestrial television then what does that do to the exposure and future potential for the sport. Are Sky doing all this out of the goodness of their heart. No definitely not. The are making money from it. That money by and large will come from ordinary Gaels. That money could be going into the association at a different level. Ie the clubs. The money will filter down somewhat but maybe not enough. You also do have the GPA taking their slice. These aren't necessarily bad things. Players do deserve to get some reward for their time, the increased professionalism has probably raised the game to a higher standard. The big thing is, does the GAA have a grip on what's going on. I am not so sure. As for it being unconstitutional for all games to be moved from terrestrial television, this can change. Just as pay tv wasn't allowed not so long ago."
Here's a thought what if rte or virgin media corporation (tv3) actually paid more than sky for the games. Know that might seem like radical thinking but"]No, I say that they make the best decision.
Which may be to sell the rights to the highest bidder or maybe not.
Short term Sky could be worth more.
Long term likely not because fewer people have access to Sky.
It's quite common and rational in the world to not just sell something to the highest bidder.
For instance if you're renting an apartment, it's a rational decision to accept less from a family for rent than from a group of young adults.
The family are likely to look after the property better, saving you money in the long run.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 11/01/2018 06:34:36
2067750
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Ulsterman: "Well done Joe......but you're about 3 or 4 years too late. Go back to 2013/14 and I was saying exactly this but was told I was being pessimistic and a gloom merchant. SKY are a corporate organisation who don't do charity, they only want a financial return and more dishes sold.
SKY have targeted the GAA with the ultimate aim of being the sole broadcaster of Gaelic Games in Ireland AND Britain. I predicted that SKY were looking at Dublin's success and Golden Calf dollars and licking their lips; that's why SKY are using young Dublin players now in their strategy and I wouldn't be surprised if SKY eventually launch a Dublin only pay per view channel in cooperation with the GAA and Dublin.
The Sunday Game will also eventually be blanked out in the North, as Ireland soccer games are, and people will have to subscribe to satellite TV to watch SKY's coverage of Gaelic Games. RTE and the GAA will tut, tut, look the other way and hide behind the 'broadcasting rights' excuse as they did with the soccer. The GAA sold it's soul to the corporate devil long ago but hey so long as the Dubs win every year and they, the GAA and SKY reap the rewards shhurrrre isn't life grand?" So let me get this right, you are happy that you can watch rte gaa sport for free (those of us in 26 actually have to pay for rte tv license) but annoyed that rte block you from seeing soccer as you don't pay for it.
I have no problem if the tv license in north goes directly to rte but it goes to BBC. Stop wanting everything for nothing. And don't give me any gfa nonsense, I very much doubt that who shows games will bring down the agreement. Also here's a thought lobby your local mla and demand (if they ever get their finger out and actually do what they paid for and represent those who foolishly elected them ) that they get bbcni to bid in next round. Or actually go to games instead of watching them on tv paid for by us in the south.
royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 11/01/2018 09:11:34
2067754
Link
1
|
|
as regards the promotion of the GAA its probably worth making the point that RTE do very little. fair enough they'll come up with a fantastic passionate advert before the championship and all Ireland finals but look at the overall promotion. in the middle of the league in spring you'll find premier league ahead of GAA in the news round. Rugby is by far the big winner in promotion, Soccer being a close second and the rest is a toss up. So there is lots of issues with Sky but in fairness they're doing a lot more in regards advertisement for a lot lesser of a reward (for now). this does not mean i'm an advocate of the Sky deal though. I still fear for the heritage and local facade of the game. however this is not Sky's fault!! The GAA have sowed a problem over the years with their failure to come up with a fit for purpose fixture list and extending the championship way past what it needs to be. So when you have a massive launch for the rugby autumn internationals the GAA start the championship in May in the Bronx. How can RTE launch that!!!!
theweanling (Cavan) - Posts: 414 - 11/01/2018 10:14:03
2067763
Link
0
|