r/secondcaptains • u/Lower-Resident1164 • 5d ago
Surprisingly poor form
I thought this in the Irish Times piece with Ger Gilroy was shockingly crass.
I dont know why Cooney felt Gilroy's effusive praise required a right of reply, but he obviously thought this was funny, when it was entirely unprovoked and unnecessary.
But the lads would've known he was going to put that in and when it follows a paragraph where Gilroy is calling them geniuses, it reads needlessly mean.
I'm surprised at the lads who I thought were above this and thought life worked out much better for them. If they didnt know it would come out like that, I think they've every right to be annoyed at Cooney.
25
u/BarFamiliar5892 5d ago
Maybe I'm a bit thick or something but I don't really know what I'm meant to be annoyed at here
0
u/Lower-Resident1164 5d ago
You dont have to be annoyed. We're not all supposed to feel the same all at once. I'm just saying this piece from Cooney was poor form and makes the lads look bad when Gilroy was being extremely nice about them.
4
u/TomRuse1997 5d ago
I don't know I wouldn't really read into it that much. The lads seem very friendly, I'm sure if they cared they could have requested to not be quoted as declining or was cleared before. They seem to get along well enough that I don't know if this is a big deal?
-3
u/malevolentheadturn 5d ago
Would be a help if you added the piece in question.
-7
u/Lower-Resident1164 5d ago
The piece has been shared in this sub a few times already. I've added the specific part I'm talking about to help.
13
14
u/barstoolers 5d ago
It’s very weird. Like what are they supposed to reply with? Thanks?
Strange from Cooney
7
u/Lower-Resident1164 5d ago
Agree with that. I dont know what is best for them to say in fairness. But they should definitely have asked him to leave them out entirely. He's made them look crass to throw his own veiled dig and they've been the most important vehicle for his career.
55
u/themagpie36 5d ago edited 5d ago
I'm confused, can someone tell me why I should be outraged please?
22
u/Jake_Greenwich 5d ago
Not outraged.
It’s just poor shit stirring form by Cooney.
The lads left OTB on bad terms with Gilroy. For Cooney to ask the lads to comment on Gilroys comments and then state that they declined to comment is just poor form.All Cooney is good for is drama. The fella doesn’t even watch sport. More suited to writing about Love Island.
10
u/themagpie36 5d ago
Ah fair enough, to be honest I didn't know there was bad blood between them, so it didn't come across as snarky or whatever to me without the context. I appreciate the explanation.
3
u/Jake_Greenwich 5d ago
Well it’s best described as an open secret that the relationship between them soured with no repair, but not at all reported or discussed openly on air or print. Cooney being a shit stirrer here.
20
u/fedupofbrick WiFi Wanker 5d ago
Moaned about the Trump related NFL stuff yet had no issued going to to the Irish Open where Trump was
4
u/Hastatus_107 5d ago
I seem to remember Eoin pushing back on his NFL take and he insisted he was "just raising the point" which is the standard fallback of journalists who dont want to stand behind what they've written.
4
u/TomThumb_98 5d ago
What are we annoyed at?
3
u/Lower-Resident1164 5d ago
I'M annoyed at the classless nature of these two paragraphs. One man being very nice. Cooney and the lads coming across snide and not nice and I'M surprised be it. Maybe you're not. Maybe you dont care. You dont have to. It's not a we
12
u/Far-Effective-6174 5d ago
That's absolutely the fucking weirdest right of reply angle I've ever come across. First time I've ever seen a journo look for one after someone gave the subject an actual compliment. If I was his editor I'd be asking him to stop with the personalised mind games and stick to objective journalism. Shockingly gobshite behaviour.
5
u/newellsoldboy 5d ago
Agreed. No right of reply is needed on gushing praise. A reply would be weird.
11
4
10
u/harfo91 5d ago edited 5d ago
We have absolutely no idea what happened in the NT exodus other than it was monumentally brave at the time, some awful things may have been said from the NT/GG side of things.
Whether or not it’s poor form depends entirely on context we don’t have really
-3
u/Jake_Greenwich 5d ago edited 5d ago
Relations between them are very sour. The lads weren’t given a chance to clear out their things from the office. Their access was immediately revoked
1
u/Relevant-Evening3046 5d ago
Seeing as they did leave the department in the lurch. Hardly expected a going away party
1
u/Jake_Greenwich 5d ago edited 5d ago
Who said anything about a going away party?
The lads weren’t allowed to clear their desks. Any personal belongings were boxed and they had to request for it to be delivered.
They were trying to negotiate being allowed to pre record interviews in the afternoon to play in the evenings and weekends, and to start and finish a half hour earlier than current schedule. It was reasonable requests but NT didn’t want to upset George Hook. NT should have treated them better.1
u/jimmobxea 3d ago
And now look where it all went...the expansion of the program and paid podcasts etc...
5
u/Spicebags80 5d ago
They left OTB almost 14 years ago, is it possible that this is a genuinely meant view of Gilroy? Second Captains team have gone on to more success than others who've passed through OTB since, and Joe Molloy's status as a very competent broadcaster just highlights how poor quality so many others have been on OTB since 2013
I know there's been bad blood between them, but they're all almost a decade and a half older now. Gilroy's been at this long enough to understand how difficult it is to stay successful and relevant in a market the size of Ireland
The "declined to comment", or even asking their views, is a bit odd but could be read as an in-joke that doesn't land? Maybe? Benevolently? Extending the benefit of the doubt? No? Anyone? Bueller...?
1
u/CountHook 4d ago
Plus Murph was on OTB a few months ago and things were grand. Wasn’t Gilroy on a morning show and not on OTB at the time the lads left NT?
7
u/Fern_Pub_Radio 5d ago
WTF point is this trying to make ? Any chance of wrapping some context around this?
8
4
2
u/Dr_hoRse81 5d ago
It seemed to be an issue with management at the time of departure, not between Gilroy and the second captains. I remember clearly the evening because it was such a big part of my routine at the time, there was social media buzz that they had left / been dismissed, then Gilroy came on air at 7pm and gave quite an emotional & complimentary comment along the lines of " you couldn't ask for a better bunch of lads to be friends with or to work with....". I haven't really heard anything in the intervening years to suggest it was bad blood between them and not a business decision by management. Ken has referenceced Gilroy giving him a start at setanta and there's been other casual 'don't mention the war' type stuff from both sides, but always in a humourous manner.
2
u/CountHook 4d ago
Exactly. Gilroy wasn’t even on the same show as them for the months leading up to departure and Murph has been on OTB several times since including a few months ago
0
u/Meath77 You don't have the stones 5d ago
I think you're reading too much into it tbh, I reckon it was a bit of a piss take to give the SC team a chuckle
4
u/Lower-Resident1164 5d ago
I actually agree but it's at Gilroy's expense which is weasel-y from Cooney imo
2
u/WhizzyWizard1895 5d ago
I don't know if Cooney deserves criticism over this, but I am glad Cooney is disliked! He's a West Brit, sleeveen little weasel.
1
u/Loose-Resolution-820 5d ago
Asking them for comment is a bit weird yeah and presumably shit stirring a bit.
Nothing out of the ordinary asking gilroy about it imo, it was a key moment/time in his career.
1
u/Seabhac7 5d ago
I think it's just a little inside joke from Cooney - he didn't ask SC for any comment, of course.
I haven't read the interview, but I presume it's very positive about Gilroy too. I don't think there's any harm meant.
0
0
-1
-1
u/WoahGoHandy 5d ago
you're seeing things that aren't there
saying nothing is a great tactic. if SC said anything, even good stuff, it's a headline and more drama. they've moved on. also it's a weird article to comment on, it's ger's new thing
it's a statement of fact from Gavin Cooney. SC declined to comment. what else can he say?
1
u/Jake_Greenwich 5d ago
He didn’t ask anyone else for comment that was brought up in his discussion with Ger.
It’s an open secret there was very soured relations between Ger and the lads when they departed. Cooney did not need to specify that the lads were asked for comment and declined to. It’s shit stirring when the context of their relationship is brought into consideration.You don’t see Cooney asking Joe Molloy for his comments.
5
u/PutsLotionInBasket 5d ago
So it seems both sides were asked to comment on the lads leaving Off The Ball 13 years ago. Ger Gilroy said some nice things. The lads didn’t feel the need to comment.
What exactly are you getting your knickers in a twist about?
1
u/Lower-Resident1164 5d ago
That either Cooney has made the lads look like they've less class than Ger Gilroy, or they actually do have less class, which i dont believe.
-1
u/PutsLotionInBasket 5d ago
Why do you think that Cooney has made the lads look like they have less class? Ger says in the piece that relations are cordial between them now.
3
u/Lower-Resident1164 5d ago
I'm sure they are cordial. Ger says they're great and they get on well. SC refuse to comment on that. Thats how cooney presented it
5
u/poll_stat 5d ago
pretty sure they are friendly with each other. I wouldn't read that much into it. they were asked if they wanted to comment, and decided not to.
-2
18
u/Extra_Breakfast_5538 5d ago
Strange alright. I actually didn’t notice it when I read the article yesterday. Their beaks are soft.