McCarthy admits he does not have backing of Cork hurlers

[theskull1]

Why? I don't want to repeat myself anymore.....it's tiresome saying the same thing over and over ..... but you seem to have more persistence that alot of us.

Re the PR battle being lost by the players ...I didn't refer to the players in this regard in my last post ....so ?

When I say why, I mean why now, I knew why months ago, but after the march, after the trashings, after clear backings from the grassroots and the CB's reaction to it..etc, why still now?
But you have, time and time again, you just change it when you want it to suit your post.

The march ....... Very easy for bandwagoners who want a few sundays on the lash come summer to "bulk up" the support. But then ask this crowd "what about helping out with the U8's twice a week to help develop the game that is dying"? "mmmmmm....too busy"  ....thats what I think of these type of marches (no idea who is a genuine GAA man and who is not you see!).  

The trashing  ..d'ya mean thrashings. If so ....that has nothing to do with this arguement. Are you saying that it should?

Clear backing from the grass roots...  Well that is very much open to interpretation but for sure it will only be a valid statement if this backing follows through to votes of no confidence in the secretary and that enough of these grass roots men are prepared to find the time to fill the roles of office in the CB when the sambles that it is there at the minute (IYO) falls like a house of cards. The thought of how cork will run itself unless others step up may be a massive stumbling block or is there long queues of people willing to serve?


I'm not quite sure what I" change" to suit my posts? I'm confused. Are you saying that I'm saying "now" that the players are winning the PR battle? Well for clarification I don't think they are.....but they are trying harder to do so.

One minute it's ger, next its FM, next it's the CCB. Sometimes it's just 1&2 or all 3, but we all know if they get 1 "sorted", they'll be back in a flash. Sticking to their guns they are . I just wish we knew who/what the target was just to be sure because it's a moving all the time.  2&3 are there for compromise only and well you know all know it.

[dowling]

Surely this is one of the busiest threads ever on the GAAboard. I would agree with one poster that it is fascinating how many posts Reillers has made on the topic, however I think no can deny his passion for Cork hurling at this stage.

No more love than FM or Ger McCarthy steve.

Winning hearts and minds in a media battle is an understood science to those who know how to manipulate it. Reillers knows this as do others on the anti striking side, but the man has plenty of time and in particular energy to devote to this war whilst alot of us at this stage are "bent double, like old beggars under sacks"

We really are going round and round as regard members commentary on the proceeding ...can we just admit this, and lets see how things pan out without reams and reams of the same old same old?

Still very much on the side of the 08 calling their strike off, leaving each of them the chance to be invited onto the 09 panel with Ger McC at the helm

Why?

And you more the most if I remember rightly were one of the ones who kept going on about how the players lost the PR battle.

Well apparently there was a rota taken at the meeting so why aren't we all allowed to know who was there? And there must have been minutes as well so let us all get an insight into what went on instead of all this hearsay.

Who said ye weren't allowed. I'm pretty sure you could find our pretty easily who was there.
And I don't see you grabbing for the CB minutes either.
You're getting ridiculous at this stage.

Apologies again, this time to yourself reillers. Bad choice of words on my part. Why are the names of those at the meeting not in the public domain? Or to be more precise why haven't they been put in the public domain?
And I didn't ask about the CB minutes but obviously you don't want to address what I did ask about.

But here's something to consider. Was talking to someone tonight who asked the question if these standing ovations were genuinely spontaneous or, shall we say, initiated.
Food for thought perhaps.

[sligeach]

They don't want to veto the manager fully. It's just this manager.

So finally after 5-6 days we can agree that it is a veto. The players wants a veto on Ger and Donal Og has lied to the national media regarding this. Thank you.

I am worried that they will want powers of veto in the future as well, aren't you ?

If the Cb really were genuine and put other names up with Gerald as well, debated them and then at the end felt that Gerald was the best option then the players would have either bitten their tounge for 2 (more then likely one year) and got on with it. But it was the way it was done.
FM on purpose reappointed Gerald the way he did to get rid of the senior players.
This is to an extent the result he wanted, the "ring leaders" gone.

But reillers, by the letter of the law he did nothing wrong. Just by the spirit of it.

And I agree with you that Ger was probably not the right choice and the players had every right to gather support to vote him out.

You've assumed I disagree with everything you support simply because I disagree with some of it.

Technically you are right, it is a veto, but if (and it's an extreme comparison I know) but if you kill someone in war are you a murderer? (The only example I could think of.)
You know what I mean.
Or Robin Hood. Technically he was a theif right, but..
I'm really, really trying to break it down here.

Murder as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide.
Homicide (Latin homicidium, homo human being + caedere to cut, kill) refers to the act of killing another human being.[1] It can also describe a person who has committed such an act, though this use is rare in modern English. Homicide is not always an illegal act

If you kill another soldier in a war then its a lawful killing, not a murder. Soldiers can get tried for murder even in time of War, e.g > killing a civilian.
Robin Hood was a thief. Been a thief just describes his actions, its makes no account of the circumstances and its neither good nor bad. Been a thief is simply the act of stealing but that means f-all except he stole. Its nothing to do with why or how or who he stole from. Been a thief does not make him bad or good or anything, it just means he stole which is a fact.

It wasn't about wanting to change the system and have a veto it was a reaction to an action from the CB.
It's a veto because of circumstance.

And yet again, I am not arguing the rightness or the wrongness of it. I am arguing what it is and it IS a veto. The circumstances, the who, the why, the how make no difference to what the word means.
If I eat my dinner, it makes no difference where I ate, what I ate, Who I ate it with, Why I ate it or how much it was. It doesn't matter if it was bad or good, it doesn't matter if I got food poisoning or etc etc. The circumstances make no difference whatsoever to the meaning of the word 'eat'.

Donal Og doesn't want to use the word because if he calls it a veto then people may believe he will want powers of veto in the future.

The rights and wrongs make the difference. You've never done something that was technically wrong for the right reasons, ever hear of ends justifying the means?

And this is my point! A veto is not right or wrong, its not good or bad. Whether its technically right or wrong or illegal or legal or crazy or sane or stupid or smart or ... etc makes no difference to what its called.

You have your views, that's fine. But you can't keep painting everything in such a black and white way, now maybe you believe that everything is that simple or you're just having a pop at Donal Og every chance you can.

Because it is black and white. Its a f-ing word with a very simple meaning.

And yes, I admit freely I can't stand Donal Og (And Dessie) and hurling and the GAA will be a lot better off when he goes.

The proper channels. Like what, talk to the CB, ask them nicely not to do it.
Ask the clubs to provoke a sleeping dog? Ask them to go against the CB, suffer the consequences right there and then. It wouldn't have worked.
The players did the only thing in their arsenal that has got the CB to listen in the past. They refused to play.
Nothing else works and now this time it didn't even get their attention.

You have your view, I have mine.

I have no problem with what the players want or are doing, my problem is with their methods.

Calling them lying dishonest cheats is out of line and unfair. Why are you calling them cheats?

They signed an agreement last year not to strike = dishonest.
They (Donal) has lied on the national media = lying.

First of all they are not striking they are refusing to play. Call it what you like that is technically what they are doing, what they have said they are doing.

Refusing to play until demands are met = striking.

[sligeach]

Taken from rebelgaa..posted originally by Lebump

This is the same County Board who voted against the formation of All-Ireland Club Championships back in the 70's.

... so ? Its proven to be great, but at the time many people had genuine concerns, one of which was the downfall of the provincial championships.

This is a reason to think FM is evil incarnate why ?

This is the same County board who voted against live television coverage back in the late 80's ( i stand corrected on the timimg, could have been early 90's).

Again, plenty of people had legitimate concerns about this. Whats the point ?

This is the same county board who voted against Rule 42 despite delegates/clubs voting overwhelmingly in favor of it.

The clubs and delegates voted in favour but the CCB voted against ? really ?

And I still am wondering what your point is, they have every right to vote the way they think is best. Many people were worried about getting rid of rule 42.

This is the same county board who appointed Teddy Holland, with a huge majority from the delegates, only to fire him weeks later with an even bigger majority.

..... because of the actions of the players you support ?

This is the same county board who have been involved in 3 player strikes in a decade.

uh huh ...

etc etc

Theres nothing in there that shows Frank been evil or been a dictator.

[dowling]

Think you have that pretty well nailed Sligeach.

Would you mind if I offered a word of caution though, I don't mean to come across as lecturing.
Because the 2008 panel say Gerald isn't a good manager doesn't make him such and as you've pointed out the panel, through their spokesperson/s has lied already. The thing is they have to say he's no good as opposed to we don't like his style and methods or they wouldn't have any support.
But where are all the others he coached backing the 2008 panel view. All I've heard and read is good.

[orangeman]

Sligeach  - you've hit a lot of nails firmly on the head there.

[orangeman]

The bitteress and division is spreading like wildfire. How can this dispute, however it turns out, have been worth it ?




Thursday February 26 2009

THE Cork row has spread to the top level of the GAA with President Nickey Brennan and his immediate predecessor, Sean Kelly, disagreeing on how Croke Park has dealt with the crisis.

Kelly suggested on Tuesday that Croke Park had been "oscillating" in the early stages of the dispute, prompting Brennan to describe the former president's remarks as "unfair and not helpful."

"Clearly, Sean is in political mode at the moment," he remarked.

However Kelly, who will be a Fine Gael candidate for the Ireland South constituency in the European elections in June, explained that Tuesday's interview with 'Prime Time' had taken place before incoming president Christy Cooney and Director General Paraic Duffy had attempted to broker a settlement of the dispute last week.

shame

"In that regard, my remarks might be taken out of context. The intervention by Christy and Paraic obviously changed the scenario as far as Croke Park's involvement was concerned. They did their best to find a settlement and fair play to them for that. I wasn't critical of anybody in particular in the interview -- I just feel that as an Association, we should have been trying to solve it from the start.

"It would be a terrible shame if such a great GAA county as Cork, which has achieved so much in hurling, camogie, men's and ladies' football, weren't represented by their best teams in this year's championships," said Kelly.

Brennan insisted yesterday that Kelly's involvement wasn't helpful.

"It's unfortunate that he thought it necessary to engage in the process. He is well aware as a former president how Croke Park deals with these matters.

"Croke Park has been engaged in this process for some time. Obviously we have been more public on the matter in the last few weeks. We don't stick our heads in the sand. We talk privately to people about what's going on and how we can get some movement going," said Brennan.

While Kelly was keen yesterday to play down any suggestion of a rift between him and Croke Park over the handling of the Cork affair, the 'Prime Time' interviews with himself and Brennan were quite blunt.

"They (Croke Park) were, I suppose, oscillating in the beginning. They said it's a Cork problem and we're not getting involved. Then they seemed to get involved and then they seemed to withdraw again, which was maybe understandable to some extent, but to suggest that it's not a GAA problem is rather foolhardy," said Kelly.

Brennan responded that while Croke Park are always available to give advice to counties, it would not have been appropriate to become involved initially in the Cork dispute. However, the scenario changed as the row escalated.

"We got involved three weeks ago but we could find no way to move forward then. We got involved in a much more detailed way last week and we found that, sadly, we couldn't break the logjam then either, so I think it's unfair of Sean Kelly to make those comments about the situation," Brennan told 'Prime Time'.

Meanwhile, the focus in Cork has switched to a new phase in the dispute with the County Board declaring that there will be no more votes on Gerald McCarthy's role as manager.

Campaign

The Board are insisting that it retains full powers regarding the appointment of team managers and that a decision has already been taken to have McCarthy at the hurling helm.

Following a meeting between the 2008 squad and club representatives last Sunday night, the players are hoping that that clubs will begin a campaign to have the management issue re-visited.

It's the latest twist in a messy situation where there's growing disquiet outside Cork over how the dispute will impact on other counties.

All the indications are that the Cork hurlers will be in Division 2 in 2010. However, if Cork have returned to full power by then they would be near-certainties for promotion, thereby robbing the other seven contenders of a real chance of getting into Division 1.

Also, if the strike continues, there's a distinct possibility that Cork will be relegated to the Christy Ring Cup for the 2010 season.

Meanwhile, the footballers are threatening to boycott the Munster championship unless the hurlers' dispute is resolved, a move which could leave them facing a year's suspension.

- Martin Breheny

[dowling]

I think it's time even at this stage for the 2008 panel to pull back for the sake of Cork and the greater good of the GAA. No doubt the panel were buoyed by their meeting last week and even if the panel can't be accused of playing it up the media certainly did. But here's the thing, it is still to ascertained who all the 'delegates' at the meeting were for one. And out of those there is no indication that there was any significant club support behind them so there's really no way to measure any potential impact. Opposed to that there were 142 clubs we're told represented put of 239 which means nearly 100 were not there. Now there is no basis to say why not but I would be inclined to think they lean with the chairman's sentiments about it but either way that's a sizable amount of clubs to be won over. Oh the 2008 panel don't need to win them over to necessarily win their fight if they even get clubs to do their bidding for them but for the sake of future harmony in the county they would need to be won over.
But whether there will ever be a vote of confidence revisited is another indication of the 2008 panel not being able to think out where they're going or where all this is taking Cork. You would have to imagine that the first thing to do when seeking to use due process would be to make sure you are within the rules, and especially so when opposed on the other side by Frank. But the panel didn't do this and sent off 'delegates' to clubs to seek something that isn't possible. I don't doubt there are intelligent men on the 2008 panel but I don't doubt either they thought this would have been over long ago and because it wasn't their actions are ill-thought out and destructive.
If I was one of the younger lads on that panel I'd be looking at a Donal og and another couple of boys and asking, "what the feck have you got me into?"

[Zulu]

Sligeach, first off, you tackled only some of the points so I presume you accept the others reflect poorly on FM but I readily accept that some of them, taken in isolation, are not 'bad' in any sense of the word. The list, however does show a record of conservatism and lack of imagination, which goes along way towards explaining the mindset of the CCB. However once again a pro-CB, dismisses the notion of grassroots democracy when it suits when you say this....

Quote
This is the same county board who voted against Rule 42 despite delegates/clubs voting overwhelmingly in favor of it.

The clubs and delegates voted in favour but the CCB voted against ? really ?

And I still am wondering what your point is, they have every right to vote the way they think is best. Many people were worried about getting rid of rule 42.

....it appears that you feel the CB can over rule the grassroots opinion if they see fit, which dowling and OM agree with. Nail on the head, really?

And when you add in the other issues it stacks up as a fairly incompetent reign.

[sligeach]

Sligeach, first off, you tackled only some of the points so I presume you accept the others reflect poorly on FM but I readily accept that some of them,

You may not presume that. I seen no need to quote them because my question remains for them all, what makes any of them make Frank look bad ?

taken in isolation, are not 'bad' in any sense of the word. The list, however does show a record of conservatism and lack of imagination, which goes along way towards explaining the mindset of the CCB.

Your saying Frank is evil because the CCB have shown themselves to be conservative ? 

....it appears that you feel the CB can over rule the grassroots opinion if they see fit, which dowling and OM agree with. Nail on the head, really?

The CB can vote whatever way they want to vote on issues because thats what they were put there for. Thats called democracy, its also the system of government we have in this country.

Presently this countries government are making some very unpopular decisions but the people put them there to do that.

And when you add in the other issues it stacks up as a fairly incompetent reign.

You haven't stated a single issue which shows Frank as 'evil' or as 'dictatorial'. All you have shown is a CB put there voting on certain issues one way or another.

[passedit]

You haven't stated a single issue which shows Frank as 'evil' or as 'dictatorial'. All you have shown is a CB put there voting on certain issues one way or another.

I'll give you a single issue.

Secretary of the Cork County Board of the GAA
1973-present

That's a Dictatorship.

As for his record, have you read Croke Park's draft proposals?

Here's Sean Moran's take on it.

Role for Croke Park in Cork affairs after crisis

On Gaelic Games: There is much to be said for reinvolving Croke Park once the Cork crisis passes with the inevitable departure of Gerald McCarthy, writes SEAN MORAN

BE CAREFUL what you wish for. All of those who scolded the Cork hurlers for not working through the system if they had problems with the county administration got their answer at the weekend with the enthusiastic turnout at the players' briefing meeting for clubs on Sunday. Coming a couple of weeks after a crowd of over 10,000 had marched in Cork city in support of the 2008 players, this was further evidence the county administrators have lost the argument.

It's difficult to project exactly how this process will unwind but it is now clear this year's Cork crisis is as good as over and it's now a matter of how well organised the endgame will be. Not only that but it is more than likely the recurrent problems within the county in recent years are finally going to be resolved.

Gerald McCarthy's role in doggedly clinging to the wreckage of his controversial reappointment continues to distort the situation. For all the hard words spoken in public between the manager and last year's hurling panel, the focal point of the dispute has always been the process by which the appointment took place. But it's as if both parties have become obsessed by McCarthy's position as the ultimate arbiter of who wins this long-running argument.

Last Thursday night, a high-powered delegation from Croke Park – director general Páraic Duffy and president-elect Christy Cooney – placed on the table a document they hoped would settle the dispute. It proposed McCarthy would stay on for this season with additions to his management team and that afterwards and for the next couple of years the question of who would manage Cork would be taken out of the hands of the county.

This was an extraordinary enough initiative but the rest of it was even more remarkable, effectively taking over the strategic administration of Gaelic games in Cork. It was like appointing an administrator or receiver to manage the county.

The issues to be addressed under the aegis of Croke Park and in consultation with the Cork GAA were wide ranging: "games development strategies within the county (this will include the results of the recently completed NCTC report); infrastructure and facilities; communication structures; fixture planning and execution; strategies for addressing the challenge of urbanisation; the overall personnel requirements to manage the future of Cork GAA".

In retaining McCarthy's position with the senior team, the document was doing no more than a receiver might in retaining a line manager on a short-term contract.

By far the most bizarre aspect of the comings and goings late last week was the preparedness of the county executive to accept the Duffy-Cooney resolution, together with all its implications for how Cork is perceived to have been administered in recent years.

As one delegate said privately, it was effectively the executive voting no confidence in itself. Yet that was what they were ready to do apparently in return for McCarthy remaining in the position to which they had so ill-advisedly appointed him, an appointment only recently endorsed.

Conversely the players, many of whose longest-running objectives were realised by the Croke Park document, felt they couldn't accept it because of the requirement to play under McCarthy – even though it would only be for the remainder of this year and with the palliative of two heavyweight additions to the management team, including one as coach.

But there are reasons why the two parties had adopted their respective positions. The executive accepted the proposal because they simply want the matter sorted out. Having unerringly played themselves into the calamitous situation they now occupy, they just wanted an exit – for all the misgivings about the implications of the document.

They must also be reflecting on how high the water is rising in this controversy.

Although the players have been fulminating over what has been characterised as more "psy-ops" stuff from the county officers – the public disclosure of a negotiating model based on McCarthy staying on as manager and involving the replacement of his selectors – the real issue for them has been the campaign to persuade the clubs to back the 2008 panel.

The notion McCarthy could stay on as part of a settlement didn't survive scrutiny for very long, having been floated at Friday night's impromptu county board meeting. It did, however, deepen aggravation among the players and led to an uncomfortable Saturday morning for them, fielding texts from supporters accusing the panel of having sold out.

However, Sunday's turnout at the Maryborough Hotel in Douglas added momentum to the campaign but the players aren't getting carried away by the enthusiastic response when they met club representatives. It is accepted those present who opposed the players' stance were likely to have said nothing and the follow-through from the meeting to shaping club policy won't be straightforward in all cases.

Junior clubs present are only represented at county board through their divisional structures and not only does that water down their influence in voting numbers but it also means they have to pilot support for the players past the senior clubs that are also represented at divisional level and who mightn't hold the same views on the situation.

At board level there is also the difficulty that county chair Jerry O'Sullivan again made it clear at last night's board meeting he won't allow the question of McCarthy's appointment to be raised again given it has already been endorsed twice.

Even if that obstacle is hurdled, the reversing of a previous decision would require a two-thirds majority, a target not easily reached even with a decisive majority of the clubs in favour although a simple vote of no confidence in McCarthy and his management would presumably make their position untenable.

The biggest problem with proceeding through the clubs, however, is not so much related to the prospects of success but the consequences of the campaign. Going down this route of club egms and formalised position-taking will mean bitter divisions, which could take years to heal.

There is also the issue of what happens to the Croke Park document and articles three to seven, outlining the proposed interim structures in the county. No one is quite sure of the answer to that should the clubs successfully overturn the appointment or in the event of McCarthy walking away.

Yet the inescapable fact is that the proposals are now in the public domain, bearing eloquent witness to Croke Park's opinion of how Cork has been running its affairs. There are those within the county, weary of the turmoil, who see the document as a worthwhile blueprint independent of its role in resolving the dispute.

There is still much to be said for reinvolving Croke Park once the matter settles, as it will sooner or later, with McCarthy's departure.

smoran@irishtimes.com

[sligeach]

I'll give you a single issue.

Secretary of the Cork County Board of the GAA
1973-present

That's a Dictatorship.

Nope it ain't.

A dictatorship means power is with him and only him. Its not and never was.

[orangeman]

There are other county secretaries who have been in situ for a very long time but dictators they are not.

Dominic Mc Caughey has been in the Tyrone secretary's seat for an awful long time and would not be considered a dictator.

I suppose the real test will be at the next AGM / EGM to see how many of the present executive are voted off the board.


If the clubs want control ( if they think they haven't got it ) they can appoint new people to all positions.

Jerry O'Sullivan chairman and father of two of the panel is no mug, no subservient wee boy who does what Frank tells him.

[The GAA]

Im fairly sure the players knew the reception they were going to get or else they wouldnt have called the meeting.

the meeting took a while to organize and Im sure that time was put to good use with the players making phone calls to supporters at different clubs in order to insure a good turn out for the cameras.

I dont blame the players for this but dont think we are all fools and believe all we see on tv. Some of these guys are very comfortable on tv having worked with different ad agency's and know exactly how to stage an event.

How exactly do these players go about stage managing the turn out of club chairmen and delgates for the cameras? its not as if you can just contact those in a club who support you?

[The GAA]

I think it's time even at this stage for the 2008 panel to pull back for the sake of Cork and the greater good of the GAA. No doubt the panel were buoyed by their meeting last week and even if the panel can't be accused of playing it up the media certainly did. But here's the thing, it is still to ascertained who all the 'delegates' at the meeting were for one. And out of those there is no indication that there was any significant club support behind them so there's really no way to measure any potential impact. Opposed to that there were 142 clubs we're told represented put of 239 which means nearly 100 were not there. Now there is no basis to say why not but I would be inclined to think they lean with the chairman's sentiments about it but either way that's a sizable amount of clubs to be won over. Oh the 2008 panel don't need to win them over to necessarily win their fight if they even get clubs to do their bidding for them but for the sake of future harmony in the county they would need to be won over.
But whether there will ever be a vote of confidence revisited is another indication of the 2008 panel not being able to think out where they're going or where all this is taking Cork. You would have to imagine that the first thing to do when seeking to use due process would be to make sure you are within the rules, and especially so when opposed on the other side by Frank. But the panel didn't do this and sent off 'delegates' to clubs to seek something that isn't possible. I don't doubt there are intelligent men on the 2008 panel but I don't doubt either they thought this would have been over long ago and because it wasn't their actions are ill-thought out and destructive.
If I was one of the younger lads on that panel I'd be looking at a Donal og and another couple of boys and asking, "what the feck have you got me into?"

We got all tt the first 10 times you posted it. i fail to see the reasoning behind your constant rehashing of old statements, which we already know exactly who agrees and disagrees with you on, just to be filling space