Liam O'Neill

[seafoid]

Aogán Ó Fearghail , the new Liam O'Neill, has all of his predecessor's aptitude for logic

ttp://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2015/0302/683878-new-gaa-president-hints-at-reduced-tv-coverage/


"The debate within the GAA is over as regards the media rights deal. There was no negative comment all weekend [at Congress] about the media deal. They are very comfortable with it.

"Whether the numbers of Sky are relevant to us, we don't go out checking how many people open new AIB bank accounts because they are a sponsor of ours."
Surely the Sky numbers are relevant in terms of the deal being renewed. AIB is a market leader that uses GAA sponsorship to keep competitors at a disadvantage. Very different models.

Fine bit of whataboutery there... AIB is irrelevant in this debate when we're talking about the ability of people to watch the GAA. Yes we have a new market of millions in the UK that can watch it but clearly they don't and it means less people in Ireland can watch it.

I was OK with the Sky deal at the start but the figures on display show that it has been a spectacular failure. What Company wants to advertise to an audience of 55,000? Sky won't be able to sustain it if that's the level of success they have!

I would argue that AIB is relevant (yes it is a different model) and that it was a ridiculous comment. If you don't monitor how lucrative sponsorship has been for a sponsor, how the hell can you maximise revenue from sponsors? For Sky of course you monitor subscriptions. That is how you put the price up next time. For the banks, monitor how often they advertise using your brand and exactly what level of corporate activity they have, monitor the use of the GAA when they are in schools (I still have my bank account that I opened in school) and make sure you assess what value they put on the sponsorship in their AGMs and any statements they makes.

It is like renting out an office and not having a clue how much the tenant makes from sub-letting it.

They are not very good at STFU type comments. Maybe they would better off just saying "Lookit, that's the why".

[muppet]

What has been O'Neills legacy? The mark of a president.

The Sky Deal, and Mayo having to play in Limerick.

He is about the only one who didn't 'get on with it'.

[AZOffaly]

Aogán Ó Fearghail , the new Liam O'Neill, has all of his predecessor's aptitude for logic

ttp://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2015/0302/683878-new-gaa-president-hints-at-reduced-tv-coverage/


"The debate within the GAA is over as regards the media rights deal. There was no negative comment all weekend [at Congress] about the media deal. They are very comfortable with it.

"Whether the numbers of Sky are relevant to us, we don't go out checking how many people open new AIB bank accounts because they are a sponsor of ours."
Surely the Sky numbers are relevant in terms of the deal being renewed. AIB is a market leader that uses GAA sponsorship to keep competitors at a disadvantage. Very different models.

Fine bit of whataboutery there... AIB is irrelevant in this debate when we're talking about the ability of people to watch the GAA. Yes we have a new market of millions in the UK that can watch it but clearly they don't and it means less people in Ireland can watch it.

I was OK with the Sky deal at the start but the figures on display show that it has been a spectacular failure. What Company wants to advertise to an audience of 55,000? Sky won't be able to sustain it if that's the level of success they have!

I would argue that AIB is relevant (yes it is a different model) and that it was a ridiculous comment. If you don't monitor how lucrative sponsorship has been for a sponsor, how the hell can you maximise revenue from sponsors? For Sky of course you monitor subscriptions. That is how you put the price up next time. For the banks, monitor how often they advertise using your brand and exactly what level of corporate activity they have, monitor the use of the GAA when they are in schools (I still have my bank account that I opened in school) and make sure you assess what value they put on the sponsorship in their AGMs and any statements they makes.

It is like renting out an office and not having a clue how much the tenant makes from sub-letting it.

They are not very good at STFU type comments. Maybe they would better off just saying "Lookit, that's the why".

Exactly. Every time they open their mouths they sound out of touch and arrogant. And by they I mean the GAA executive.

I'm in favour of Sky giving RTE a serious wake up call in terms of their quality, but I would have backed the Clare motion to have the games on both. I realise that wouldn't have been a good move for Sky.

Sky's figures may be disappointing, but I'm sure they will be hoping for them to grow as they become established, and this summer isn't a World Cup year so we'll see.

However, the more comments that come out about this (and other items) are so annoying that you start to sway to the other side of the argument. As I said umpteen times at this stage, I'm like a broken record, it's obvious that there has been a shift in thinking in the GAA away from 'Let's raise enough money to increase our facilities and support our games' to 'Lets make our games more attractive for sponsors and partners, and increase our revenue streams'.

I have no doubt the aim is still one of reinvestment, but that subtle shift, if unchecked, will lead to decisions which favour the 'business plan' rather than the purpose of the business plan in the first place. ie. participation and enjoyment of our games.

[blewuporstuffed]

Aogán Ó Fearghail , the new Liam O'Neill, has all of his predecessor's aptitude for logic

ttp://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2015/0302/683878-new-gaa-president-hints-at-reduced-tv-coverage/


"The debate within the GAA is over as regards the media rights deal. There was no negative comment all weekend [at Congress] about the media deal. They are very comfortable with it.

"Whether the numbers of Sky are relevant to us, we don't go out checking how many people open new AIB bank accounts because they are a sponsor of ours."
Surely the Sky numbers are relevant in terms of the deal being renewed. AIB is a market leader that uses GAA sponsorship to keep competitors at a disadvantage. Very different models.

Fine bit of whataboutery there... AIB is irrelevant in this debate when we're talking about the ability of people to watch the GAA. Yes we have a new market of millions in the UK that can watch it but clearly they don't and it means less people in Ireland can watch it.

I was OK with the Sky deal at the start but the figures on display show that it has been a spectacular failure. What Company wants to advertise to an audience of 55,000? Sky won't be able to sustain it if that's the level of success they have!

I would argue that AIB is relevant (yes it is a different model) and that it was a ridiculous comment. If you don't monitor how lucrative sponsorship has been for a sponsor, how the hell can you maximise revenue from sponsors? For Sky of course you monitor subscriptions. That is how you put the price up next time. For the banks, monitor how often they advertise using your brand and exactly what level of corporate activity they have, monitor the use of the GAA when they are in schools (I still have my bank account that I opened in school) and make sure you assess what value they put on the sponsorship in their AGMs and any statements they makes.

It is like renting out an office and not having a clue how much the tenant makes from sub-letting it.

They are not very good at STFU type comments. Maybe they would better off just saying "Lookit, that's the why".

Exactly. Every time they open their mouths they sound out of touch and arrogant. And by they I mean the GAA executive.

I'm in favour of Sky giving RTE a serious wake up call in terms of their quality, but I would have backed the Clare motion to have the games on both. I realise that wouldn't have been a good move for Sky.

Sky's figures may be disappointing, but I'm sure they will be hoping for them to grow as they become established, and this summer isn't a World Cup year so we'll see.

However, the more comments that come out about this (and other items) are so annoying that you start to sway to the other side of the argument. As I said umpteen times at this stage, I'm like a broken record, it's obvious that there has been a shift in thinking in the GAA away from 'Let's raise enough money to increase our facilities and support our games' to 'Lets make our games more attractive for sponsors and partners, and increase our revenue streams'.

I have no doubt the aim is still one of reinvestment, but that subtle shift, if unchecked, will lead to decisions which favour the 'business plan' rather than the purpose of the business plan in the first place. ie. participation and enjoyment of our games.

+1

Good post

[johnneycool]

Aogán Ó Fearghail , the new Liam O'Neill, has all of his predecessor's aptitude for logic

ttp://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2015/0302/683878-new-gaa-president-hints-at-reduced-tv-coverage/


"The debate within the GAA is over as regards the media rights deal. There was no negative comment all weekend [at Congress] about the media deal. They are very comfortable with it.

"Whether the numbers of Sky are relevant to us, we don't go out checking how many people open new AIB bank accounts because they are a sponsor of ours."
Surely the Sky numbers are relevant in terms of the deal being renewed. AIB is a market leader that uses GAA sponsorship to keep competitors at a disadvantage. Very different models.

Fine bit of whataboutery there... AIB is irrelevant in this debate when we're talking about the ability of people to watch the GAA. Yes we have a new market of millions in the UK that can watch it but clearly they don't and it means less people in Ireland can watch it.

I was OK with the Sky deal at the start but the figures on display show that it has been a spectacular failure. What Company wants to advertise to an audience of 55,000? Sky won't be able to sustain it if that's the level of success they have!

I would argue that AIB is relevant (yes it is a different model) and that it was a ridiculous comment. If you don't monitor how lucrative sponsorship has been for a sponsor, how the hell can you maximise revenue from sponsors? For Sky of course you monitor subscriptions. That is how you put the price up next time. For the banks, monitor how often they advertise using your brand and exactly what level of corporate activity they have, monitor the use of the GAA when they are in schools (I still have my bank account that I opened in school) and make sure you assess what value they put on the sponsorship in their AGMs and any statements they makes.

It is like renting out an office and not having a clue how much the tenant makes from sub-letting it.

They are not very good at STFU type comments. Maybe they would better off just saying "Lookit, that's the why".

Exactly. Every time they open their mouths they sound out of touch and arrogant. And by they I mean the GAA executive.

I'm in favour of Sky giving RTE a serious wake up call in terms of their quality, but I would have backed the Clare motion to have the games on both. I realise that wouldn't have been a good move for Sky.

Sky's figures may be disappointing, but I'm sure they will be hoping for them to grow as they become established, and this summer isn't a World Cup year so we'll see.

However, the more comments that come out about this (and other items) are so annoying that you start to sway to the other side of the argument. As I said umpteen times at this stage, I'm like a broken record, it's obvious that there has been a shift in thinking in the GAA away from 'Let's raise enough money to increase our facilities and support our games' to 'Lets make our games more attractive for sponsors and partners, and increase our revenue streams'.

I have no doubt the aim is still one of reinvestment, but that subtle shift, if unchecked, will lead to decisions which favour the 'business plan' rather than the purpose of the business plan in the first place. ie. participation and enjoyment of our games.

+1

Good post

In total agreement and the be all and end all will be the intercouty championships as they are the cash cow.

The club game is getting lip sevice and will continue to do so.

[seafoid]

Aogán Ó Fearghail , the new Liam O'Neill, has all of his predecessor's aptitude for logic

ttp://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2015/0302/683878-new-gaa-president-hints-at-reduced-tv-coverage/


"The debate within the GAA is over as regards the media rights deal. There was no negative comment all weekend [at Congress] about the media deal. They are very comfortable with it.

"Whether the numbers of Sky are relevant to us, we don't go out checking how many people open new AIB bank accounts because they are a sponsor of ours."
Surely the Sky numbers are relevant in terms of the deal being renewed. AIB is a market leader that uses GAA sponsorship to keep competitors at a disadvantage. Very different models.

Fine bit of whataboutery there... AIB is irrelevant in this debate when we're talking about the ability of people to watch the GAA. Yes we have a new market of millions in the UK that can watch it but clearly they don't and it means less people in Ireland can watch it.

I was OK with the Sky deal at the start but the figures on display show that it has been a spectacular failure. What Company wants to advertise to an audience of 55,000? Sky won't be able to sustain it if that's the level of success they have!

I would argue that AIB is relevant (yes it is a different model) and that it was a ridiculous comment. If you don't monitor how lucrative sponsorship has been for a sponsor, how the hell can you maximise revenue from sponsors? For Sky of course you monitor subscriptions. That is how you put the price up next time. For the banks, monitor how often they advertise using your brand and exactly what level of corporate activity they have, monitor the use of the GAA when they are in schools (I still have my bank account that I opened in school) and make sure you assess what value they put on the sponsorship in their AGMs and any statements they makes.

It is like renting out an office and not having a clue how much the tenant makes from sub-letting it.

They are not very good at STFU type comments. Maybe they would better off just saying "Lookit, that's the why".

Exactly. Every time they open their mouths they sound out of touch and arrogant. And by they I mean the GAA executive.

I'm in favour of Sky giving RTE a serious wake up call in terms of their quality, but I would have backed the Clare motion to have the games on both. I realise that wouldn't have been a good move for Sky.

Sky's figures may be disappointing, but I'm sure they will be hoping for them to grow as they become established, and this summer isn't a World Cup year so we'll see.

However, the more comments that come out about this (and other items) are so annoying that you start to sway to the other side of the argument. As I said umpteen times at this stage, I'm like a broken record, it's obvious that there has been a shift in thinking in the GAA away from 'Let's raise enough money to increase our facilities and support our games' to 'Lets make our games more attractive for sponsors and partners, and increase our revenue streams'.

I have no doubt the aim is still one of reinvestment, but that subtle shift, if unchecked, will lead to decisions which favour the 'business plan' rather than the purpose of the business plan in the first place. ie. participation and enjoyment of our games.

Dead right AZ. They really pissed off the auld fella last year and he wouldn't be that bolshy. Very poor PR and taking the support for granted- advisors are crap. They can do way better.

[magpie seanie]

Crap President but he is only a figurehead, the public face of where the GAA is going. And we know chasing the dollars is the priority because there'll soon be pro games to fund.

[yellowcard]

Poor president, failed to tackle the single biggest issue in the GAA (fixtures) in any way shape or form and has been a poor figurehead for the association. The Sky deal was something that I was open minded about but it clearly has backfired as well given the lack of viewing numbers. GAA is a distinctly Irish sport and doesn't need to try and seek approval from overseas markets, the most important audience are those who participate and are active members of the association. O'Neill hasn't brought the association forward in any way, shape or form. Conservative and has failed to tackle the big issues. 

[Zulu]

Of course there won't be a pro game but no harm to throw in that boogey man again. How anyone can claim a TV deal has been a spectacular failure after one year is beyond logic. The NFL took 30 years to get a strong foothold in the UK and the GAA were expected to do it in a few months???

There was lads complaining about the decision to prevent 17 year olds getting flogged on another thread so it is clear that 'corporate GAA' is more often than not a throw away line when they do something that some people don't agree with and I've yet to see any decision being universally lauded.

I often wonder about some lads who complain about the club game being sidelined yet won't make many of the changes that could give the club game a chance. Lads on the one hand complain about club players getting no consideration yet totally reject the idea of separating the club and IC game. If you did that (and I'm not saying it is what we should do) all non-IC players could get as many games as the CB could provide for them and elite IC players could get a better structure to their season.

Other ways to help club players -

Bar dual IC players from minor up by fixing hurling and football on the same weekend, freeing up loads of weekends.

Get rid of the provincial championships which are won by a handful of counties anyway and set out a clear structured season, which could be played (both codes) within 4 months.

Get rid of replays at IC level.

Prevent anyone playing IC at more than one age group, would that get support from the clubs of small counties like Longford, Leitrim, Cavan etc.

Lots could be done to help all players but grassroots gaels would be up in arms about most, if not all of the above but will then spend the year complaining about corporate GAA.

[Zulu]

GAA is a distinctly Irish sport and doesn't need to try and seek approval from overseas markets, the most important audience are those who participate and are active members of the association.

All sports started somewhere but have spread, so how is the GAA distinctly Irish? Even within Ireland it means different things to different people. How is showing it abroad, seeking approval from overseas markets and even if it is what's wrong with that?

[Jinxy]

I'll miss his smile.

[yellowcard]

GAA is a distinctly Irish sport and doesn't need to try and seek approval from overseas markets, the most important audience are those who participate and are active members of the association.

All sports started somewhere but have spread, so how is the GAA distinctly Irish? Even within Ireland it means different things to different people. How is showing it abroad, seeking approval from overseas markets and even if it is what's wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with it per se but when its at the expense of depriving the majority of its audience (active GAA members) the chance to watch the matches then its not healthy. The main body of people who wish to view the matches are based in Ireland and they have been denied access to plenty of championship games because of the Sky deal. A large part of the interest in GAA particularly outside of the latter end championship games, is because of its tribalism and local rivalries and being able to identify with players and teams.

I don't see that changing and despite the tweets from Jonny in Essex or Matt in Stockport about the amazing games I think the viewing figures give us a better picture about the mass appeal of the games to an outside audience.   

[Rossfan]

I suspect most active GAA members don't have much time to watch TV games.

[Give and Go]

My impression of Liam from a long way back, since before he became secretary of Laois Co Board, was that he was highly ambitious to advance himself in GAA administration.
Nothing wrong with that but it begs the question - what was his vision.
Was it only to climb the ladder or did he have a vision for what he wanted the GAA to become?

I found his claim when interviewed that he know from the age of 7 or 8 that he wanted to be President of the GAA hard to believe!

Liam can be impressive in meetings but he sometimes came across as sullen and defensive.
Easy from to say that of course as I was not the one wearing the crown!.

A good and decent GAA man, put a 100% effort into the role.

I suppose it's too soon to really say how effective a President he was.

[magpie seanie]

My impression of Liam from a long way back, since before he became secretary of Laois Co Board, was that he was highly ambitious to advance himself in GAA administration.
Nothing wrong with that but it begs the question - what was his vision.
Was it only to climb the ladder or did he have a vision for what he wanted the GAA to become?

I found his claim when interviewed that he know from the age of 7 or 8 that he wanted to be President of the GAA hard to believe!

Liam can be impressive in meetings but he sometimes came across as sullen and defensive.
Easy from to say that of course as I was not the one wearing the crown!.

A good and decent GAA man, put a 100% effort into the role.

I suppose it's too soon to really say how effective a President he was.

You won't get there if you have ideas that are different or if you have a vision. Like "real" politics, sadly.