McCarthy admits he does not have backing of Cork hurlers

[imtommygunn]

Reillers in my post I didn't say they wanted to pick their manager I said they were in it for themselves.

Nothing you have said convinces otherwise. You say they want the best manager for the good of cork hurling so they can win etc etc

Ultimately any board changes on this which, probably won't but may do, come about  are a bi-product of the players being out for themselves. Would that not be a fair comment? How does them getting a new manager benefit Cork hurling? Yes their results may be better short term but longer term unless you make changes on the county board then it's all for nothing.

I actually would be of the point of view that if they were really, and I mean really, doing this for the good of cork hurling they would be demanding board changes and not manager changes. I would also see that as admirable, unlike some posters here, but what they are doing I don't.

You have argued on this thread about how bad FM is and then when it boils down to it said it's not him they want rid of! If he's that bad and they have the best interest of Cork hurling at heart they would be looking to get him out. I had some sympathy for Cork players but you have argued me out of it!!

[Reillers]

There has been a perpeptual row with the players and the board for some years now and you think I underestimate their ability to bury the hatchet? Quite the opposite, they've been burying it in each other without hesitation.
"From the very start their problem was with how he was reappointed, and they said they wouldn't play under him because of that."
Which is the problem? If the procedure was changed would they play for Gerald or if Gerald went would they play irrespective of the procedure? I'm not trying to be petty here Reillers but you can't have it every way. And that's the thing, we all assume the issue for the 2008 panel was Gerald but because he hasn't been shifted it's open season on what the problem is and because the panel didn't see it going this far they have no strategy and are just lashing out hoping others will buy what they say. And if you think this dispute will be easily put to bed you underestimate the damage the 2008 panel have caused.
What about the present panel do they not deserve any credit for stepping into the breech in Cork's time of need? And if they get beat should they not deserve the support of Cork GAA when they pull on the Cork jersey or does Cork GAA only support the jersey when certain people are wearing it.

You seem to underestimate everything else.
That is the issue now, with how he was reappointed. It doesn't matter if it was changed now, the damage is done. Ger mac was an awful manager, he should never have been reapointed, but he was. So now they wont play for him. If things were done right at the start there is no way he would have been reappointed.
The players have never varied what the problem was, the media and such has, but not the players.
The damage the panel have caused? What about the board, it's their fault we are in this position and why we have been in this position 2 times all ready. In any half decent functioning board you think that this would have happened..not a chance in hell.
And it's the board fault that the young 09 panel are in this situation, if they'd any sort of underrage structure it'd be a different story all together, but it's not.
The present panel knew what they were getting into, they know they're the 4/5th string side, a lot of players have refused to play for that panel because when they play they want to have earned it, not handed it.
They're young lads, but their not idiots, they're not children. They knew what they were getting into when they said they'd play, very little support was part of what they shoud expect.
The fans feel a massive loyalty to the players who have given us unbelievable days out, these lads though..no bond has been made. Nothing. The young lads knew this when they said they'd play.

[orangeman]

We feel that there is a sickness at the heart of the organisation in Cork which must be healed. It is not for us to apportion blame as to how that happened. We believe that the cure can only come from within this great organisation. In the meantime, we refuse to take part further in the latest manifestation of that sickness.

If that makes us difficult, then that is regrettable. We would all, to a man, prefer to be labelled as difficult than as cowards; to be seen as fanatical rather than morally weak; to be seen as acting above our station rather than subservient and self-serving.

[Reillers]

Reillers in my post I didn't say they wanted to pick their manager I said they were in it for themselves.

Nothing you have said convinces otherwise. You say they want the best manager for the good of cork hurling so they can win etc etc

Ultimately any board changes on this which, probably won't but may do, come about  are a bi-product of the players being out for themselves. Would that not be a fair comment? How does them getting a new manager benefit Cork hurling? Yes their results may be better short term but longer term unless you make changes on the county board then it's all for nothing.

I actually would be of the point of view that if they were really, and I mean really, doing this for the good of cork hurling they would be demanding board changes and not manager changes. I would also see that as admirable, unlike some posters here, but what they are doing I don't.

You have argued on this thread about how bad FM is and then when it boils down to it said it's not him they want rid of! If he's that bad and they have the best interest of Cork hurling at heart they would be looking to get him out. I had some sympathy for Cork players but you have argued me out of it!!

They want FM gone, I promise you that, but you can't get rid of him, no one can. The players would never win that arguement, FM have the clubs on a string like puppets.
You don't understand how much influence he has. The players would do anything that they could to get rid of FM, but they can't do anything and you don't get that, you can not grip how much power he has.
They have said they wanted the board to change, they said it in the press conference. But they are not basing their whole arguement on wanting FM to resign (that would come later if the CB changed.)
I agree in short term results will be better and that (and they've said this as well) in another year or two down the line they'd probably be back here again. They want the CB to change.
They have asked, demanded in a way that the CB change their ways but they are not saying that they want him to resign out loud. It'd be pointless and stupid and they know they'd never see the inside of a Cork dressing room ever again if they did.

Why loose sympathy for these players when the situation hasn't changed. It's bullshit, you say I've talked you out of it is a sorry excuse. What they want and are willing to ask for those things and what they are smart enough not to say are two very different things.

Their argument at the start was that he was not appointed in the right way and that hasn't changed, but (and it's not coming across right in my posts I'll admit) they've said that the CB needs to change. All I'm saying is that their arguement of what they want is to have McCarthy gone has never changed.

[Zulu]

Cork failed to learn from Holland precedent

Wed, Feb 04, 2009

The Cork County Board and Gerald McCarthy will sooner or later have to accept that without the players' support the manager's position is simply untenable, writes Seán Moran

IT'S HARD to imagine a weirder opening to Anthony Daly's tenure as Dublin hurling manager than what's about to unfold this weekend. The former Clare captain and manager had to conjure up a range of motivations when leading out teams to face Cork at various points in that relationship but he could hardly have imagined taking Dublin down to Cork in the National League and seeing his team go in at 5 to 2 on.

The strangeness of the situation from Dublin's perspective is scarcely noticeable when compared to Cork's predicament. Unlike last year there is no straining against the deadline of a league campaign to try to resolve the conflict between players, management and county board. It has been accepted on all sides that the county's first-choice players may play no role in the campaign at all.

That this has been the latest instalment in a sequence of administratively dysfunctional episodes has contributed to the general indifference outside of the county and whereas that attitude has caused resentment, it also reflects the fact that nothing can be done to resolve the problem without a major climb-down or capitulation on either side.

Even Croke Park's tentative efforts at intervention are accompanied by the acceptance of that pessimistic reality.

Yet there are genuine national interests at stake. Hurling has such a thin cast of championship counties that the loss of any would be a setback and the loss of one as important as Cork is a serious blow. For all that the current team, halfway between the twilight of great careers and the dawn of others, can't be regarded as All-Ireland contenders in the era of the current, exceptional Kilkenny side they have that elusive, box-office quality.

Although there was never any real doubt about how the counties' All-Ireland semi-final collision would work out last August, the match was Kilkenny's toughest of the campaign and the only one in which their superiority on the scoreboard was restricted to single digits. Cork continue to attract great support with over 70,000 in attendance for the above semi-final. In a year when a decline in gate receipts is expected the GAA can ill- afford to be losing a crowd-pulling presence of this magnitude.

Just about everything that could go wrong with this crisis has gone wrong. The genesis can be traced back to the resolution of last year's stand-off over the appointment of Teddy Holland as manager of the footballers. Although that fiasco concluded with the players winning on all counts and Holland being dismissed by the very board that had heedlessly appointed him just a couple of months previously, the victory would prove pyrrhic. The only reason the county board agreed to be bound by mediator Kieran Mulvey's arbitration was they believed they would win the argument. In the event Mulvey did what all professional arbitrators do – picked the simplest and most deliverable resolution and Holland was gone.

Part of the arbitration dealt with how matters within the county might move forward. Some of it makes for wistful reading a year later: "Future disputes should be resolved by mediation and, if unresolved, by agreed arbitration," and "There should be no recriminations by either side arising from the history of this dispute and all should work together to rebuild the damaged relationships between the parties for the betterment of Cork GAA."

At the heart of the current impasse is Gerald McCarthy's reappointment for a further two-year term. Under the structures proposed by Mulvey the appointment was made by a committee that included two players.

This was a gallant attempt to establish best practice on a structured basis. There can't be a county in the country that doesn't informally take soundings from senior players before making an appointment of this nature. The problem here is the county executive evidently understood the appointments committee to be another theatre of war in which to re-engage in hostilities with the players.

By simply using their inbuilt majority the officials bludgeoned through the reappointment of Gerald McCarthy, again recklessly indifferent to player reservations and by extension the future of hurling within the county. It's not known why McCarthy decided to stay on in defiance of the wishes of those he would be expected to manage. It has been argued on his behalf that he was genuinely unaware of player hostility and that even the appointment after last June's Tipperary defeat of facilitator Cathal O'Reilly – advanced by the players as proof that the wheels were coming off the management – was intended to address onfield concerns rather than a crisis in that core relationship.

Whatever the reason for accepting reappointment, it's no secret why McCarthy dug in his heels. The old combative instincts, which to many observers seemed to have drained away from the manager by the time of the Tipperary defeat, were reignited by the public criticism of his management by players as the dispute escalated last November.

What has passed between the parties, with the county board apparently happy to let the manager engage in sl*gging routines with the players, makes rapprochement impossible despite McCarthy's bizarre insistence after each fusillade that his door remains open to the 2008 panel. Right now the smart money is on a great deal more damage being done before any settlement takes root, in which case Croke Park's intervention will have to be aimed at controlling the possibilities of further eruptions in the years ahead.

A year ago Mulvey's arbitration diplomatically noted the provocative appointment of Holland: "The board was entitled to appoint a manager in accordance with their rules and procedures and, in this respect; they have acted in a legitimate fashion. It was unwise, however, to proceed to do so in view of the players' stated opposition and their view of the 'understanding' the players believed they had obtained in relation to future management/selector appointments, arising from the outcome of the '2002 Dispute'."

Same situation. Same solution. It's only a matter of whether McCarthy and the county board accept that reality sooner – in time to salvage something from this season – or later – perhaps after relegation to the Christy Ring Cup.smoran@irishtimes.com

© 2009 The Irish Times

[orangeman]

We feel that there is a sickness at the heart of the organisation in Cork which must be healed. It is not for us to apportion blame as to how that happened. We believe that the cure can only come from within this great organisation. In the meantime, we refuse to take part further in the latest manifestation of that sickness. If that makes us difficult, then that is regrettable. We would all, to a man, prefer to be labelled as difficult than as cowards; to be seen as fanatical rather than morally weak; to be seen as acting above our station rather than subservient and self-serving.



So if Frank is still in power, why if the strikers are so high on principle and morality do they want to stick around ??

[imtommygunn]

Reillers I think we find it hard to believe that one man is as untouchable as you seem to think he is.

There was a man on my own county's county board who was doing things like proposing motions that county players couldn't be members of the GPA. That man, opinions of the GPA aside, was and to this day is no good for the county. He was eventually ousted - it looked for a while like he wouldn't be.

Where there is a will there is a way.

[tyronefan]

But you've blamed FM all along here - seems that FM caused all of this and anything that ever went wrong or might go wrng with Cork GAA in the future, according to you, but the strikers don't want him to resign ??

Even though Gardiner said at the press conference that he had caused every strike ?


Something not right here - something just doesn't add up.


Frank can stay - Gerald must go cos we want to resume our playing careers and the man who one poster said had a pathalogical dislike of the players and who has been blamed by all pro player posters as being the cause of Cork's ills can stay

So it was never about the good of Cork hurling ( if Frank can stay ) ?

It was never about doing this cos Cork hurling was about to die ?

Instead it was all about a few lads who just didn't like the manager - so they invented a pile of crap just to get rid of him.

Fine - if Gerald goes - so should the strikers.   

you know what orangeman after 180 odd pages I think you have hit the nail on the head

[Zulu]

What are you talking about OM? The players want to play and are looking for the support from their county board that the likes of Tyrone and Kilkenny take for granted. Your attempts to take certain lines from the players statement and use it as a stick to beat them with is pathetic, you've literally stopped posting any coherent argument yourself and just take certain lines from player statements or pro-player posts (completely out of context, might I add) and try to twist into something that suits your own entrenched but as yet undefined opinion.

[Eoghan Mag]

Yet there are genuine national interests at stake. Hurling has such a thin cast of championship counties that the loss of any would be a setback and the loss of one as important as Cork is a serious blow. For all that the current team, halfway between the twilight of great careers and the dawn of others, can't be regarded as All-Ireland contenders in the era of the current, exceptional Kilkenny side they have that elusive, box-office quality.

This is the bit that ruins the Irish Times article. This is such an elitest attitude that it sickens me. Last year the Football Championship was run in an upside down manner and likewise this year's Hurling Championship will be the wrong way up. It should be the case that if any team from a lower division knocks out a team from a higher division then the higher division side should be gone totally from the Championship. This would in the long run lead to a wider spread of All-Ireland contenders. The writer suggests that only box-office quality teams should win an All-Ireland and that to me is the same as saying only the teams that bring in the most money should be allowed to win. What a load of rubbish and highly dangerous thinking. It is one of the reason why people outside of Munster think the GAA down there is crooked when they can grade Cork and Kerry apart in their football draw because if they don't meet in the final the organisation will not make money. Over-all not just this Cork hurling situation is bad for the
GAA but the entire Munster setup is bad for it.

[Zulu]

Sean Moran isn't arguing that only the big teams should win the AI, he is simply saying that with such a small pool of teams losing one of the traditional power houses with one of the biggest supports is a blow to the whole championship, which is true.

As for your suggestion that the big teams being knocked out of the championship should they be beaten by one of the weaker teams, well lets just say it is a crazy and unworkable system.

[Eoghan Mag]

Sean Moran isn't arguing that only the big teams should win the AI, he is simply saying that with such a small pool of teams losing one of the traditional power houses with one of the biggest supports is a blow to the whole championship, which is true.

As for your suggestion that the big teams being knocked out of the championship should they be beaten by one of the weaker teams, well lets just say it is a crazy and unworkable system.

Explain to me exactly why my system is unworkable? It is no more crazy than the current one.

[Zulu]

Because you seem to be proposing one system for any team that meets a team from a lower division and one for the other team. So for example if Armagh (div. 2) lose to Tyrone (div. 1) in the championship they get a second chance but if Tyrone lose they are out. And if Armagh win and meet Antrim in the next round and lose they are out but if Antrim lose they are still in. To take it a step further can a division 4 team ever be knocked out except if they meet another division 4 team?

[Eoghan Mag]

Firstly do you really expect a division one side will get beaten by a division 4 side? Secondly the league might act as the basis but could also be combined with what round in the Championship the team was knocked out in the previous year. I'd love a hurling Championship with no Cork, Kilkenny, Tipperary or Galway in the semi-finals. As it stands the set-up is strangling the game and it will continue to narrow if something is not changed soon.

[passedit]

A year ago Mulvey's arbitration diplomatically noted the provocative appointment of Holland: "The board was entitled to appoint a manager in accordance with their rules and procedures and, in this respect; they have acted in a legitimate fashion. It was unwise, however, to proceed to do so in view of the players' stated opposition and their view of the 'understanding' the players believed they had obtained in relation to future management/selector appointments, arising from the outcome of the '2002 Dispute'.

"

First of all, those of you rising to Orangeman need to cop yourselves on, just turn your back and ignore him as he takes his traditional route through incoherance.

Secondly this dispute is all about Murphy, the Mc Carthys are a symptom of the disease, as was Holland last year, but if the symptoms only are treated the cancer will reappear soon enough. Murphy manufactured this dispute by reappointing Mc Carthy when he knew he was a beaten docket, look at the highlighted quotes above from Moran's article, Murphy has been fighting the battle he lost in 2002 ever since with the original appointment of McCarthy when not even Mc Carthy himself wanted him in the job, through the Holland appointment and now to the reappointment of Mc Carthy.The players probably see no way of getting rid of Murphy, the dictatorship has been there too long, but by winning the skirmishes hope he'll be weakened or at least contained. Personally i'd prefer if they went after him now but then my hurling future doesnt depend on the outcome.