McCarthy admits he does not have backing of Cork hurlers

[imtommygunn]

I don't think either the 2008 panel or the cork board are being up front about everything.

The GPA I don't think have a big part to play here so I don't think it's a big deal. That's just my opinion.

I don't believe in what the cork players are at here - mainly because of motivations. I think they're in it for themselves and should be doing it to oust the board but aren't. That may or may not be a bi-product.

I very much doubt the GPA are the bad guys here.

[The GAA]

Apologies Dowling i didn't reply as i meant to there...

i believe the GPA are involved on a "touching base" basis but not in any meaningful way at all

[passedit]

"If the Cork hurlers said they wanted us to become more involved then obviously we'd talk about it,..."
Dessie again in another part of his statement.
Note the "more involved" GAA. But then maybe Dessie hasn't a clue. You can always set him right there.

So because of the use of the word more you assume there is some involvement. Are you clutching at straws to scapegoat the GPA?

That they have to become more involved implies to me they are not particularly involved and are far from as involved as they could be. Like I say I think you're scapegoating the GPA here when you don't need to be...

Tommy have a look back over all of Dowling's posts, that's what he signed up to do. Only ONE post outside this thread (and that in the Frank Murphy thread) and the vast majority thinly veiled attacks on GPA.

[orangeman]

What did you make of the CB statement last night Reillers Serious misrepresentation ??

Earlier this evening, the board released a statement in which it outlined its version of the selection process that led to the appointment of McCarthy.

It claimed the normal process for selecting a manager was followed and that it included two players' representatives, as outlined in Mulvey's arbitration after the dispute between the panel and board last year.

It added that it also gave McCarthy to remit to choose his own backroom team, as was stipulated by Mulvey, and contended that it was the players that had rowed back on their promise not to strike if these two conditions were adhered to.

The statement, which was released with a timeline of events since the county convention in December last year, added: "It is most disappointing that we are again faced with a controversy and dispute when the procedures followed have been in accordance with not alone precedent but the decisions of the arbitrator.

The board describes McCarthy as "a man who has given over 40 years of outstanding service to this association as a player, club administrator and team manager", and says its regret that he "should have to suffer undue criticism in public".

Meanwhile McCarthy's first selection for this year's National League was released tonight, featuring 15 players who haven't before played at this level. It includes nine of the starters from the previous competitive outing, last month's Munster Cup defeat by Waterford IT, who were beaten in the first round of the Fitzgibbon Cup yesterday by the University of Limerick.

In other team news Tipperary, who play Cork tomorrow week to launch the floodlights in Semple Stadium, have named their first league selection for the weekend's trip to take on All-Ireland finalists Waterford in Walsh Park.

Patrick Maher makes his NHL debut at centre forward for the holders, who lost the recent Munster Cup final to Clare.

CORK (NHL v Dublin): A Kennedy; E Clancy, C Murphy, C O'Sullivan; E Keane, R Ryan, C Leahy; B Johnson, G O'Connor; T Ã"g Murphy, A Ryan, D Crowley; A Mannix, M Collins, E Cronin. Subs: C Cronin, A Kearney; J Moran, G O'Driscoll, T Murphy, R O'Driscoll, P Lynch, C O'Leary, C McCarthy.

TIPPERARY (NHL v Waterford): B Cummins; C O'Brien, D Fanning, P Curran; B Dunne, C O'Mahony, D Fitzgerald; S Maher, T Stapleton; P Kerwick, P Maher, J Woodlock; P Kelly, J O'Brien, W Ryan.

DERRY (NHL v Mayo): D McDermott; R McCloskey, C Quinn, S McNicholl; P Sweeney, L Hinphey, S McCullagh; S Henry, K Hinphey; M Craig, B Dodds, P McCloskey; M aKirkpatrick, R Convery, O McCloskey.

Statement Issued by Cork County Board

It is regrettable that there has been serious misrepresentation of the sequence of events in relation to the appointment of Gerald McCarthy as Cork senior hurling manager for this and next season.

We outline below the county committee's position on these events. We realise it is quite detailed but we hope it will be some assistance.

In brief, the county committee is satisfied that it adhered fully to the terms of the Mulvey arbitration of last year including two players being on the 2008 appointments committees and the managers appointed having the right to pick their own selectors.

Further, the process leading to the appointment of Gerald McCarthy was similar to that which led to the appointment of the Cork senior football manager, Conor Counihan.

The hurling appointment committee, had five meetings over a three week period. At the first of these it was decided unanimously that Gerald McCarthy would be asked if he was interested in being reappointed as manager.

At the behest of the appointment committee, three officers of the county committee met with Gerald McCarthy and he indicated that he was positively interested in being reappointed.

His interest in being reappointed was conveyed to the second meeting of the appointment committee and was well received by the players' representatives present.

It was only at the third meeting, when a motion to recommend the reappointment of Gerald McCarthy was proposed and seconded, that a suggestion of opposition to him first arose.

It should be stated that the meetings had been quite constructive. The players put forward an expansive plan for a management and backroom team (involving 22 Roles). The members of the county committee on the appointment committee indicated that they were prepared to support the plan in principle, subject to the approval of the team manager. They offered to have the plan presented by the members of the county committee executive to Gerald McCarthy, or for the players to do that themselves.

The players required that a process should involve the selection of five people, including Gerald McCarthy, to be interviewed and to be asked to put forward a "management package".

The members of the county committee on the appointment committee were not favourable to this and were of the opinion that the process that had been operated on several occasions in the past and notably in the more recent appointments of the football manager should be followed. This involved the committee determining who first was to be offered the position, and if that man accepted, then this was the end of the process. If he did not accept, then the appointment committee would consider and determine the next person in line to be offered the post.

The proposal of having Interviews would inevitably lead to qualified people then (or in the future) not allowing their names to go forward in such a process, as happened in the past when the entire county board voted on appointments.

Additionally, it was pointed out that the appointment committee did not have a function in asking prospective managers what 'management package' they would bring forward and for the appointment committee to evaluate a 'package'. It was for the manager to select his selectors and backroom team and put them forward for ratification. It was on this very principle that the players had gone on strike earlier in 2008 – a principle conceded by the county committee in respect of appointments to be made in 2008, based on the arbitrator's report.

At the fifth Meeting, the motion to recommend the appointment of Gerald McCarthy was taken. Although the names of other people had been mentioned briefly at a previous Meeting, no other candidate was proposed, although the chairman invited other proposals. Gerald McCarthy received five votes. The players' representatives did not vote and left the Meeting.

The hurling appointment committee recommended the appointment of Gerald McCarthy to the county committee meeting of 21st October. At this meeting the issue of the players' opposition to Gerald Mc McCarthy's appointment was raised and discussed. The county committee appointed Gerald McCarthy as manager by 88 votes to 6.

The process of appointments had been decided upon by the county committee on 16th September. The appointments (hurling and football) were made on 21st October ie. five weeks later, a fact which contradicts the suggestion that the process was rushed.

It is most disappointing that we are again faced with a controversy and dispute when the procedures followed have been in accordance with not alone precedent but the decisions of the arbitrator.

One of the decisions of the binding arbitration reads:

"The players agree not to invoke any "strike" process in future where it is clear that the terms of this Arbitration Memorandum have been adhered to."

This decision is clearly not being adhered to by the players involved.

It is most regrettable that Gerald McCarthy, a man who has given over 40 years of outstanding service to this association as a player, club administrator and team manager, should have to suffer undue criticism in public.

In the weeks after the appointment decision being made, officers made a number of unsuccessful efforts to have talks to resolve the impasse.

The appointed team manager also wrote a conciliatory letter to each player individually but he received a negative collective response.

The county convention on the 13th December decided that a mediation process be established consisting of two players, two from team management and two members of the county committee executive, under an independent chairman, to be appointed by the county committee president.

Attached you will find a statement made by Diarmuid O Suilleabhain, cathaoirleach, to the county committee meeting on 27th January, in which he sets out the sequence of events since county convention, which confirm the county committees bona fides in the matter and its efforts to meet in every respect the wishes of the county convention.

The officers and the team management have been open to discussions at all times and were willing to enter talks under Mr Kelleher with an understanding that there would be no votes involved at any point in the mediation process that would put the player representatives at a disadvantage.

The failure of the 2008 panel of players to engage in any serious attempt to resolve the current impasse is one of the most disappointing aspects of the dispute. They rejected the efforts of the independent Chairman, Olann Kelleher, to try to achieve a solution and also indicated that they would not meet under any independent chairman.

On Tuesday 27th January, the central council of our association offered to assist to try to break the impasse. The central council required that this process remain confidential.

Efforts were made to try to find a solution but without success. The officers deeply regret the failure of this latest genuine initiative to bring this dispute to an amicable conclusion.

At its meeting on 27th January, the county committee emphatically rejected unfair criticism of the committee and its members contained in the statement issued by the players at a recent press conference.

We trust that the above fully clarifies the county committee's position.

Gearóid Ó Laighin,

PRO Cork County Board GAA

[imtommygunn]

I'd noticed that alright passedit. A definite anti-GPA agenda there.

[dowling]

Ah sure I know you're not heartless GAA.

"If the Cork hurlers said they wanted us to become more involved then obviously we'd talk about it,..."
Dessie again in another part of his statement.
Note the "more involved" GAA. But then maybe Dessie hasn't a clue. You can always set him right there.

So because of the use of the word more you assume there is some involvement. Are you clutching at straws to scapegoat the GPA?

That they have to become more involved implies to me they are not particularly involved and are far from as involved as they could be. Like I say I think you're scapegoating the GPA here when you don't need to be...

Tommy have a look back over all of Dowling's posts, that's what he signed up to do. Only ONE post outside this thread (and that in the Frank Murphy thread) and the vast majority thinly veiled attacks on GPA.

You taking a special interest in me?

You see this is the problem some have, I've made comment other than just about the GPA in this debate. I've consistently said I would rather there wasn't this dispute and I fear for Cork and where this dispute is leading. In relation to the GPA, in spite of quoting Dessie several pages ago I've had to spend a lot of time convincing posters of GPA involvement. And yes I'm concerned at that involvement for various reasons but mainly I don't think what the GPA would hope would be achieved at the end of this would necessarily be good for Cork. At no time have I derided anyone else for their views or responded to others trying to insult me. Anything wrong with that or must I consult with yourself to be allowed to write about something? Unless you're admin of course.
You a GPA member yourself?

I'd noticed that alright passedit. A definite anti-GPA agenda there.

And there's me thinking we were having a mature debate.

[imtommygunn]

Not a GPA fan at all. I just don't think they're at the heart of this problem.

And there's me thinking we were having a mature debate.

That's a poor form of argument - put the other person on the defensive eh?

I have asked questions to figure out why you are putting so much emphasis on the GPA in your posts - you have nit picked the use of the word "more" to try and show people how involved they are which leads me to wonder
a) do you know how involved the GPA are?
or b) are you slanting this towards an anti GPA argument because you have a bugbear with them?

You may have posted with other opinions but the majority of your posts slant towards GPA.

I've no special interest in you in particular - I just wonder what's causing you to continually talk about the GPA here? Do you know something we don't? Apart from the implications of the word more.

I am intrigued and there's been some crap posted on this thread which has been far from intriguing!

[dowling]

Not a GPA fan at all. I just don't think they're at the heart of this problem.

And there's me thinking we were having a mature debate.

That's a poor form of argument - put the other person on the defensive eh?

I have asked questions to figure out why you are putting so much emphasis on the GPA in your posts - you have nit picked the use of the word "more" to try and show people how involved they are which leads me to wonder
a) do you know how involved the GPA are?
or b) are you slanting this towards an anti GPA argument because you have a bugbear with them?

You may have posted with other opinions but the majority of your posts slant towards GPA.

I've no special interest in you in particular - I just wonder what's causing you to continually talk about the GPA here? Do you know something we don't? Apart from the implications of the word more.

I am intrigued and there's been some crap posted on this thread which has been far from intriguing!

<Or in summary do you know something we don't or are you just talking out of your ass?>

Firstly it was passedit I was asking about the special interest and being a GPA member. And while there was a mild touch of sarcasm I thought we were having a mature debate.
I've focused a lot on the GPA because it took me so long to get people to accept any type of involvement, posters were in denial even after I quoted Dessie.
There's so many pages to this debate , I read a portion of them and there were other points I might have made which were already covered. But basically I'm like everyone else, I don't know the whole story or even most of it. However going by the nature of the dispute, the leaders of the 2008 panel and the history of previous disputes and the history of the GPA I would deduct the GPA is more than touching base. There's no doubt that if the 2008 panel were to win this dispute that it would be a huge morale boost to the GPA so one way or another they have a vested interest in its outcome. Now that's my deduction and while I believe there's logic to it it could be proved wrong.
And while the state of Cork GAA is at stake here this dispute has a wider impact. If the GAA in Cork really want to settle this I just think those who wish to show support one way or the other should at least acknowledge all the parties involved at present and decide what contribution they all might bring to the table.

[passedit]

Not a GPA fan at all. I just don't think they're at the heart of this problem.

And there's me thinking we were having a mature debate.

That's a poor form of argument - put the other person on the defensive eh?

I have asked questions to figure out why you are putting so much emphasis on the GPA in your posts - you have nit picked the use of the word "more" to try and show people how involved they are which leads me to wonder
a) do you know how involved the GPA are?
or b) are you slanting this towards an anti GPA argument because you have a bugbear with them?

You may have posted with other opinions but the majority of your posts slant towards GPA.

I've no special interest in you in particular - I just wonder what's causing you to continually talk about the GPA here? Do you know something we don't? Apart from the implications of the word more.

I am intrigued and there's been some crap posted on this thread which has been far from intriguing!

<Or in summary do you know something we don't or are you just talking out of your ass?>

Firstly it was passedit I was asking about the special interest and being a GPA member. And while there was a mild touch of sarcasm I thought we were having a mature debate.

I have no interest in you other than being pissed off with you trying at every opportunity to shoehorn the GPA into this debate ( the only subject you appear to be interested in on this board). I'm neither a member nor a particular fan of the GPA, are you a county board apparatchik?

[Reillers]

Not a GPA fan at all. I just don't think they're at the heart of this problem.

And there's me thinking we were having a mature debate.

That's a poor form of argument - put the other person on the defensive eh?

I have asked questions to figure out why you are putting so much emphasis on the GPA in your posts - you have nit picked the use of the word "more" to try and show people how involved they are which leads me to wonder
a) do you know how involved the GPA are?
or b) are you slanting this towards an anti GPA argument because you have a bugbear with them?

You may have posted with other opinions but the majority of your posts slant towards GPA.

I've no special interest in you in particular - I just wonder what's causing you to continually talk about the GPA here? Do you know something we don't? Apart from the implications of the word more.

I am intrigued and there's been some crap posted on this thread which has been far from intriguing!

<Or in summary do you know something we don't or are you just talking out of your ass?>

Firstly it was passedit I was asking about the special interest and being a GPA member. And while there was a mild touch of sarcasm I thought we were having a mature debate.
I've focused a lot on the GPA because it took me so long to get people to accept any type of involvement, posters were in denial even after I quoted Dessie.
There's so many pages to this debate , I read a portion of them and there were other points I might have made which were already covered. But basically I'm like everyone else, I don't know the whole story or even most of it. However going by the nature of the dispute, the leaders of the 2008 panel and the history of previous disputes and the history of the GPA I would deduct the GPA is more than touching base. There's no doubt that if the 2008 panel were to win this dispute that it would be a huge morale boost to the GPA so one way or another they have a vested interest in its outcome. Now that's my deduction and while I believe there's logic to it it could be proved wrong.
And while the state of Cork GAA is at stake here this dispute has a wider impact. If the GAA in Cork really want to settle this I just think those who wish to show support one way or the other should at least acknowledge all the parties involved at present and decide what contribution they all might bring to the table.

All Dessie has said was

"If the Cork hurlers said they wanted us to become more involved then obviously we'd talk about it,..."

They have kept clear of it completley, and all Dessie says is that if they want them to become more involved they'll discuss it..what a statement, what threat.

You really, and I mean really, hate the GPA.

Like I wouldn't say that I'd be a backer for them, but they have done some good things. They've paid a hell of a lot more interest and put in a hell of a lot more time into weak counties in football and hurling.
They've brought in scholarships.
They give the players a say, and I don't have a problem with that, it's needed. We're past the time, past the ancient old ways of GAA players being treated like crap and having to put up with it.
I support that because obviously in Cork we've seen perfect examples over the years of players being treated like dirt by FM and co. and getting away with it.

While I wouldn't be their number 1 fan by a long shot, they have done a lot of good things, but why the hell do you despise them so much. (I think I might regret asking this question and opening that can of worms.)
But seriously, what's your problem with them??

[cicfada]

Reillers, when are the strikers going to get in touch with the clubs regarding a resolution of this dispute?   I thought that they were going to invite all the club chairmen to some kind of meeting?!! Nearly 2 weeks have passed and not one word has come to the clubs if our one is indicative! I would have thought that this would be an urgent matter or is the march  the new  way to resolve this? Remember that it's through the clubs that this will be solved and this what the players have said! So no matter how many people turn out on Saturday, it's still the clubs that count!

[orangeman]

Maybe there's no great rush to meet the chairmen - a few heavy defeats would seem to be what they're after before they meet the clubs - then the clubs might be more receptive to their demands.

[Eoghan Mag]

After the dispute last year I thought the Cork footballers just about opened the door a crack to have some say in the appointment of the manager. It was not perfect as back then I read the resolution to be that they only had a role as 'consultants' and this to me was never a firm footing and one that was fully open to abuse. It seems that the consultant job was given little weight in the overall scheme of things as the real power streams from the clubs.

Now what would happen under the current system if for instance one of the hurling appointment committee members voted against a certain manager and only one of the players voted against the same man and everyone else voted for the manager?

Is this still grounds for a strike?

If the present set-up was thrown out what type of set-up should be put in its place that would prevent future strikes?

If the wording of the present agreement was refined could it work?

For example could a clause be put in to the effect that if 2/3rds of the previous year's panel did not want a man in charge and both the player representatives agreed that this should be the case then could this be brought before the clubs and voted on prior to the committee stage of deciding on the manager?

The steps taken last year did not leave a clear pathway to keep the players happy this year. So what should change and should this change be adopted by all GAA County boards thereafter?

[orangeman]

It's getting more like soccer - if the team doesn't win, it's automatically the manager's fault and so he has to be sacked.

Waterford last year, now Cork, probably Offaly, then whoever loses a few games will be next.

[Reillers]

It's getting more like soccer - if the team doesn't win, it's automatically the manager's fault and so he has to be sacked.

Waterford last year, now Cork, probably Offaly, then whoever loses a few games will be next.

Wanting Gerald gone is not just about winning and loosing OM, you know that, we've been through it over and over again.