TV licencepayers' money and Kevin Bakhurst

[Marsupial]

I don't want to get in to the whole Tubs, RTE saga, but there's one thing that puzzles me about the latest developments.

As I understand it, the aborted deal between Tubs and RTE would have seen him repaying the €150,000 that he received through the barter account, and then being paid about €170,000 a year for presenting his radio show.

In effect, that means that his net pay for the next 12 months would have been €20,000! Which isn't a bad deal for the licencepayer!

But Bakhurst pulled the plug on this deal and has since said that he doesn't expect Tubs to repay the €150,000.

So in effect, he has waved goodbye to €150,000 of licence payers' money there. How is he entitled to do this? And should the PAC investigate such a shocking waste of taxpayers' funds?

I know that we can't debate things here, but I do think that the PAC shouldn't let this one slip under the radar. Thanks for reading.

 

[arbitron]

Tubridy may have been contractually entitled to the money, in which case RTE may have had no power to make him pay it back.

Tubridy may have made the offer as a goodwill gesture as part of the agreement to let him back on air. Once the agreement was gone, his offer would have been gone too.

If RTE tried to go after him in court they may well have realised it would fail and they would be down €€€€€€ in legal bills. An even worse situation.

 

[Salvadore]

I don't want to get in to the whole Tubs, RTE saga, but there's one thing that puzzles me about the latest developments.

As I understand it, the aborted deal between Tubs and RTE would have seen him repaying the €150,000 that he received through the barter account, and then being paid about €170,000 a year for presenting his radio show.

In effect, that means that his net pay for the next 12 months would have been €20,000! Which isn't a bad deal for the licencepayer!

But Bakhurst pulled the plug on this deal and has since said that he doesn't expect Tubs to repay the €150,000.

So in effect, he has waved goodbye to €150,000 of licence payers' money there. How is he entitled to do this? And should the PAC investigate such a shocking waste of taxpayers' funds?

I know that we can't debate things here, but I do think that the PAC shouldn't let this one slip under the radar. Thanks for reading.

It’s in nobody’s interest really to pursue the 150,000 issue. It’s small beer. Tubridy giving it back voluntarily in the context of a multi year deal would have been a good way of putting it to bed. As it is now, it reflects more badly on Tubbs than it does on RTE.

The potentially bigger issue is his employment relationship with RTE and whether there’s any exposure for RTE in terms of his anticipated earnings and a potential unfair dismissal claim.

Even though he may have been on a contract, these have been rolling for some years and he may have assumed permanent employee status.

 

[Knuttell]

150k is not small beer to me as a license fee payer (for now). That's half the problem with RTE money burning a hole in their pocket. Don't care what anyone says, watch the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

 

[Marsupial]

150k is not small beer to me as a license fee payer (for now). That's half the problem with RTE money burning a hole in their pocket. Don't care what anyone says, watch the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

Yep. Especially when Bakhurst is shortly going to have to beg the Minister for Doling Out Taxpayers' Largesse for a substantial "dig out" (as Bertie would describe it).

Anyway, what interests me is whether the PAC will ask him what statutory right - if any - he had to reject Tubs's offer to repay a significant amount of money to RTE.

 

[odyssey06]

Yep. Especially when Bakhurst is shortly going to have to beg the Minister for Doling Out Taxpayers' Largesse for a substantial "dig out" (as Bertie would describe it).

Anyway, what interests me is whether the PAC will ask him what statutory right - if any - he had to reject Tubs's offer to repay a significant amount of money to RTE.

Did Tubridy really offer to pay it back? He said he would pay if back if asked. It was not offered. And RTE may no legal basis to ask for it.

I think PAC have bigger fish to fry, such as the redundancy of the previous CFO that wasn't really a redundancy.

 

[Salvadore]

150k is not small beer to me as a license fee payer (for now). That's half the problem with RTE money burning a hole in their pocket. Don't care what anyone says, watch the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.

It’s small beer in the context of RTE’s budget for which the PAC has oversight. Tubbs paying it back would have been hugely significant however as a means of diffusing the row it caused.

Would agree that the redundancy package to the former CFO is a much thornier issue.

 

[Marsupial]

Did Tubridy really offer to pay it back? He said he would pay if back if asked. It was not offered. And RTE may no legal basis to ask for it.

I think PAC have bigger fish to fry, such as the redundancy of the previous CFO that wasn't really a redundancy.

Bakhurst (in one of his self-serving interviews to his own radio station) stated that it had been agreed as part of the new contract that Tubs would repay the money.

Bakhurst unsure Tubridy will return €150,000 payment

There is no longer any agreement between RTÉ and Ryan Tubridy that he will return a controversial €150,000 payment.

www.newstalk.com

 

[odyssey06]

Bakhurst (in one of his self-serving interviews to his own radio station) stated that it had been agreed as part of the new contract that Tubs would repay the money.

Bakhurst unsure Tubridy will return €150,000 payment

There is no longer any agreement between RTÉ and Ryan Tubridy that he will return a controversial €150,000 payment.

www.newstalk.com

As part of the new contract it could be recouped \ clawed back.
But if Tubridy doesn't have a contract, what is the mechanism \ vehicle for repayment?

 

[Purple]

I take more than a little delight in the blowing away of the air of smug superiority that wafted through the corridors and studios of RTE. I'm sure it is lingering in a few offices and will fill the place again quite soon.

 

[Marsupial]

As part of the new contract it could be recouped \ clawed back.
But if Tubridy doesn't have a contract, what is the mechanism \ vehicle for repayment?

That's a question for the man who threw the chance of recouping RTE's €150,000 away. And I hope that someone in the PAC or the Oireachtas Media Committee asks him.

Bruiser Bakhurst may think that shafting Tubs on (what I think were) spurious grounds has helped to make him look good, but I reckon that a PR consultant would have made him look just as good for a lot less of RTE's money!

 

[odyssey06]

That's a question for the man who threw the chance of recouping RTE's €150,000 away. And I hope that someone in the PAC or the Oireachtas Media Committee asks him.

Bruiser Bakhurst may think that shafting Tubs on (what I think were) spurious grounds has helped to make him look good, but I reckon that a PR consultant would have made him look just as good for a lot less of RTE's money!

Bakhurst laid down a marker to Tubridy and to the action highly paid contractors ... in the long run it should save RTE more than the prospect of 150,000 which, in order to be recouped, over time much larger sums would have to be paid out.

Clamping down on the activities / culture that led to way way more than 150k being wasted is the key. And that couldnt be done having Tubridy undermining Bakhurst and acting as if he was above it all.

 

[Salvadore]

Bakhurst laid down a marker to Tubridy and to the action highly paid contractors ... in the long run it should save RTE more than the prospect of 150,000 which, in order to be recouped, over time much larger sums would have to be paid out.

Clamping down on the activities / culture that led to way way more than 150k being wasted is the key. And that couldnt be done having Tubridy undermining Bakhurst and acting as if he was above it all.

Agreed. If you have no qualms about showing the door to your star performer in your first month in the job, chances are you might just be taking the job seriously.

That’s worth a lot more than 150,000.

 

[Purple]

Agreed. If you have no qualms about showing the door to your star performer in your first month in the job, chances are you might just be taking the job seriously.

That’s worth a lot more than 150,000.

I think it's just a window dressing and there's no chance of him being able to take on the structural waste in RTE which is where the reals costs are.
Getting rid of high profile revenue generating broadcasters and thinking that will allow the boss to fix things in a heavily unionised, very institutionalised organisation of over 1800 people is wishful thinking.

The emphasis in any organisation should be on whether an employee is productive and necessary before any questions are asked about their pay levels.

 

[Salvadore]

Getting rid of high profile revenue generating broadcasters and thinking that will allow the boss to fix things in a heavily unionised, very institutionalised organisation of over 1800 people is wishful thinking.

Perhaps.

But assuming he at least has the interest in challenging the status quo, it’s an indication of the lengths to which he’s prepared to go.

He may ultimately fail in putting things right but at that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try.

 

[Marsupial]

Perhaps.

But assuming he at least has the interest in challenging the status quo, it’s an indication of the lengths to which he’s prepared to go.

He may ultimately fail in putting things right but at that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try.

Kicking a bit of low hanging - but high earning - fruit in the gonads while simultaneously and gleefully tearing up €150,000 of much needed income doesn't convince me that the Bruiser's modus operandi will achieve much. (But I'll be renewing my TV licence, regardless.)

 

[Purple]

Perhaps.

But assuming he at least has the interest in challenging the status quo, it’s an indication of the lengths to which he’s prepared to go.

He may ultimately fail in putting things right but at that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try.

I don't see that at all. He's pandered to the populists and the RTE "Wurkers" who think that Tubs was overpaid and that they are part of some great and virtuous organisation which is doing some great public good and they are making just as meaningful a contribution as him and are underpaid for what in reality is their low skilled, low stress, unnecessary and meaningless job.

The reality is that you could sack 100 people in RTE without it making as much of a different as Tubridy going.

 

[Marsupial]

Bakhurst laid down a marker to Tubridy and to the action highly paid contractors ... in the long run it should save RTE more than the prospect of 150,000 which, in order to be recouped, over time much larger sums would have to be paid out.

Clamping down on the activities / culture that led to way way more than 150k being wasted is the key. And that couldnt be done having Tubridy undermining Bakhurst and acting as if he was above it all.

As I wrote in my OP, I'm not interested in the soap opera but just in the feckless waste of licence payers' money. Bruiser had negotiated a pretty good deal with a well-regarded presenter and he threw it away on a trumped-up pretext. A textbook example of "look over there and leave my RTE baby alone"!

 

[Leo]

As I wrote in my OP, I'm not interested in the soap opera but just in the feckless waste of licence payers' money. Bruiser had negotiated a pretty good deal with a well-regarded presenter and he threw it away on a trumped-up pretext. A textbook example of "look over there and leave my RTE baby alone"!

Have you inside knowledge of the conditions he was attaching to the publicised offer?

 

[Marsupial]

Have you inside knowledge of the conditions he was attaching to the publicised offer?

Of course I do! He ran them past both me and my barrista before emailing them to Tubs. We corrected some spellings for him and suggested that the condition that Tubs work a 12 hour shift on Christmas Day was a tad onerous.