Governement grants and Player suspensions

[orangeman]

That makes no sense orangeman? what's too late? I'm not specifically talking about the grants issue. Even though that horse has bolted, there are other issues where we need a good, strong president.

I know  - what I'm saying is that Nicky has less than a year to go now and is not going to take issue with anybody on anything from here on in - he's showing the ropes to the new man.

[quidnunc]

Nicky has less than a year to go now and is not going to take issue with anybody on anything from here on in - he's showing the ropes to the new man.

Wish I could agree with that AZ. Nickey has turned out to be quite a dictator. His way or no way. And a complete reactionary. Whatever way the wind's blowing in the media etc, he'll blow that way. And in his last year he has said he'll set up a committee to change rule 11. I haven't heard many people saying there's a problem with rule 11; the real problem is enforcement, which has been compromised even more by recent events. He could do more damage by insisting on a change of rule when none might be needed.

Think back on what he said at Congress a couple of years. Pay for play in any form would not even be discussed during his term, and any grants would have to be discussed by counties BEFORE being dealt with by Central Council. Either he was lying, he forgot, or his interpretation of rules (and his own words) is so skewed that he can still try to justify all of his subsequent actions. And it's this third possibility I'd be most worried about. His likely strange interpretation of rule 11 and why it needs to be changed might fly in the face of a commonsense interpretation. So he could be creating even more problems, when it might be best to leave the rule alone.

[AZOffaly]

Nicky has less than a year to go now and is not going to take issue with anybody on anything from here on in - he's showing the ropes to the new man.

Wish I could agree with that AZ. Nickey has turned out to be quite a dictator. His way or no way. And a complete reactionary. Whatever way the wind's blowing in the media etc, he'll blow that way. And in his last year he has said he'll set up a committee to change rule 11. I haven't heard many people saying there's a problem with rule 11; the real problem is enforcement, which has been compromised even more by recent events. He could do more damage by insisting on a change of rule when none might be needed.

Think back on what he said at Congress a couple of years. Pay for play in any form would not even be discussed during his term, and any grants would have to be discussed by counties BEFORE being dealt with by Central Council. Either he was lying, he forgot, or his interpretation of rules (and his own words) is so skewed that he can still try to justify all of his subsequent actions. And it's this third possibility I'd be most worried about. His likely strange interpretation of rule 11 and why it needs to be changed might fly in the face of a commonsense interpretation. So he could be creating even more problems, when it might be best to leave the rule alone.

That was actually Orangeman that said that.You're agreeiing with me, i.e. he's a populist political type, rather than a principled visionary, in my opinion.