Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Liverpool were lucky to win that final but were far the better team in the final they lost two years later. As Greavsie used to say footballs a funny old game...
Corkery reminded me of Matt Le Tissier. Carrying a few pounds, but was great to watch. He developed his game and became a great passer of the ball. I doubt he’d be involved in county football had he come along now. There’s no place for players like that, sadly.
Top Ten at present in the votes for FF line
1. Colm Cooper
2. Michael Murphy
3. Maurice Fitzgerald
4. Bernard Brogan
5. Matt Connor
6. Mikey Sheehy
7. Padraic Joyce
8. Bomber Liston
9. Conor McManus
10. Mickey Linden
11. Con O'Callaghan
Once again the the Cork and Meath teams of the late 80's early 90's completely ignored!
Not a mention of Larry Tompkins?
1998 All Ireland Club Championship semi-final Castlehaven (Cork) v Erins Isle (Dublin) in Thurles.
Castlehaven had completely outplayed Erins Isle and were 5 points in front with 1 min left of normal time. Isles were down to 14 men and Castlehaven fans were waiting on the sidelines to run in and celebrate.... Isles scored 2 goals in injury time and won by 1 point.
I can still remember it today as one of the great days out. The bitterness of the Castlehaven fans day was something I haven’t forgotten either
What way will house prices look in a few months or when this is all over?
Shares are valued on the basis of interest rates using a method called net present value.
The lower the interest rate the higher the value of a share.
If interest rates go up the value of shares will fall.
If there is another crash the value of shares will fall
One would need to be able to price these risks really to justify investing in shares.
History has shown that all one needs is diversification and patience.
...and money.
Aidan Walsh?
Seriously?
If banned at county level should definitely be banned at club level. Can't have someone who enhanced themselves illegally going round laying it on lads in club games thereafter. Obviously in an ideal world the club lads would be tested too and I'm sure a fair few are also cheating with use of substances, but they're not being grant funded, the county lads can suck it up and should take severe punishment if caught.
If the GAA were serious about it they'd make it a stipulation that all grant funded players are tested annually and all new grant funded players are tested before they are given the coin, no point lads using the dope to get on the county panel, getting coin sitting on the bench all year, then going back to the club juiced up for club champ... its a minefield, at a base level its cheating and unethical, more importantly often its damaging to the health of these lads doing it.
The GAA has (had) the coin and should front up and take the lead, put the "Pro" sports to shame with a leading programme and transparency.
Got to agree with this. Let’s say it was an international rugby player. You couldn’t ban him (or her) from playing for Ireland but allow them to play for their province
Rugby players are professional. Gaelic Footballers or Hurlers are not.
What’s your point? Professional or not, if you get caught doping you should get a ban from all levels of the game
What type of testing are you proposing?
Who pays for the tests on a club player?
Who tests club players that travel home for games only?
What standards is he/she held to?
Do they get banned if they are working and miss training the night of a proposed test?
Who keeps a track of the club player movements if subject to random testing?
Is it urine or IV testing?
Simply not feasible.
Shares are valued on the basis of interest rates using a method called net present value.
The lower the interest rate the higher the value of a share.
If interest rates go up the value of shares will fall.
If there is another crash the value of shares will fall
One would need to be able to price these risks really to justify investing in shares.
If banned at county level should definitely be banned at club level. Can't have someone who enhanced themselves illegally going round laying it on lads in club games thereafter. Obviously in an ideal world the club lads would be tested too and I'm sure a fair few are also cheating with use of substances, but they're not being grant funded, the county lads can suck it up and should take severe punishment if caught.
If the GAA were serious about it they'd make it a stipulation that all grant funded players are tested annually and all new grant funded players are tested before they are given the coin, no point lads using the dope to get on the county panel, getting coin sitting on the bench all year, then going back to the club juiced up for club champ... its a minefield, at a base level its cheating and unethical, more importantly often its damaging to the health of these lads doing it.
The GAA has (had) the coin and should front up and take the lead, put the "Pro" sports to shame with a leading programme and transparency.
Hold up. It is banned at club level and the GAA can arrange testing at any level tomorrow if it wants. The only amateur sports people I am aware of being tested are cyclists (for obvious reasons) and NCAA (and I assume a scenario where an amateur side qualify for Europe in soccer). I think we all agree we ate nowhrre near cycling problems. So is the expense and confrontation worth it?
Sports Ireland test in professional sport, and the grants put intercounty players in that bracket.
Athletics too. Sports Ireland will only test those who are carded (receive grants), however a non-carded athlete could for example qualify for the European Cross Country championships and be randomly selected for a test after the race.
So not amateur athletes per say, but an amateur can qualify for an elite competition and fall into the regieme then?
So nothing stopping you juicing away your pre season? Hard one to call.
If banned at county level should definitely be banned at club level. Can't have someone who enhanced themselves illegally going round laying it on lads in club games thereafter. Obviously in an ideal world the club lads would be tested too and I'm sure a fair few are also cheating with use of substances, but they're not being grant funded, the county lads can suck it up and should take severe punishment if caught.
If the GAA were serious about it they'd make it a stipulation that all grant funded players are tested annually and all new grant funded players are tested before they are given the coin, no point lads using the dope to get on the county panel, getting coin sitting on the bench all year, then going back to the club juiced up for club champ... its a minefield, at a base level its cheating and unethical, more importantly often its damaging to the health of these lads doing it.
The GAA has (had) the coin and should front up and take the lead, put the "Pro" sports to shame with a leading programme and transparency.
Hold up. It is banned at club level and the GAA can arrange testing at any level tomorrow if it wants. The only amateur sports people I am aware of being tested are cyclists (for obvious reasons) and NCAA (and I assume a scenario where an amateur side qualify for Europe in soccer). I think we all agree we ate nowhrre near cycling problems. So is the expense and confrontation worth it?
Sports Ireland test in professional sport, and the grants put intercounty players in that bracket.
Marc O'Sé
I suppose having the surname helps!
Keegan can't be considered - no All Ireland medal (and Intermediate Club medals don't count). Without an AI medal you are nothing in Gaelic football!
There were decent defenders in the Great Meath and Cork teams of the late 80's early 90's.
Can someone please dumb down how the voting system works. How are quotas decided upon, how are surplus votes distrubuted etc
Lets say, first preference votes in a 5 seat cons.
x has 12,200
y has 7,800
z has 7,400
a has 4,300
b has 3,600
c has 2,100
d has 1,700
e has 1,000
f has 670
g has 410
h has 200
I has 120
Quota is (number of votes cast /(number of seats +1))+1
Bottom person is eliminated on each count but there also be more than one eliminated e.g. In the example above, h & I are both eliminated since even if h got all of i's transfers, h would still be bottom.
When a candidate is eliminated, each vote is transferred to the person who got #2 on the ballot (in later counts, this could be down to number 5, 6, etc. If the voter hasn't selected a #2, the vote doesn't transfer
When someone is elected with 10000 votes (quota is 9000) and has a surplus of say 1000, they pick bundles of ballots at random from those 10000 votes and distribute them in the same way as above. (I don't think that they recount all 10000 votes and distribute them pro rata as in the article below but I'm open to correction on that)
Thats what I thought, the distrubution of the surplus done at random is a bit mad, better to do it on a pro rata basis. Thanks to both Mayo lads for the reply.
