McCarthy admits he does not have backing of Cork hurlers

[dowling]

You're confusing yourself. are you now saying noone made a response to your satisfaction? you didn't like the response?
what is it that noone explained to you?

No. I appreciate your response for its honesty but noone has made an argument for defending their view that it isn't a veto, you said it was so therefore we have no argument on this subject.

So you are not saying the players are wrong to take a stance - thats progress at least. you are saying that you disagree with their methods?

Yes. And I'd even go one step further and say I don't disagree with their methods at this moment in time, regarding the way they are gathering support from the clubs. I in fact agree that Ger had his time and someone else should have been given the reigns.

I don't agree that;

- Ger is a particularly bad manager, I believe hes not the best man for the job in Cork at this stage yes, but calling him a bad manager etc is just wrong and making the players and their supporters look bad.
- The players should be 'on strike' or 'not playing' whatever way you wish to phrase it. It they truely loved Cork hurling and truely wanted to make things better for Cork hurling people they would still be playing but fighting tooth and nail for the clubs support to oust Ger. I would have no problem in the world with that. In fact I would support them in it and I believe its healthy for the GAA to have such movements.

In my opinion, the way the players are acting are remoniscent of schoolboy antics. Standing by your principles is all well and good but stand by them, through thick and thin and don't make excuses for them.

I take you missed the "cloyne motion" which is now being resubmitted?
The players can win this and they will. Brennan and cooney are already drawing up draught procedures for county boards to ensure they do things properly and avoid constituant parts of a county membership having to take severe action to ensure proper procedure.

No I didn't. Its just 5 months too late and it came about the wrong way and if the players win this (which in itself I don't mind) and get some kind of player veto on future managerial appointments then it will be a dark day for the GAA as a whole.

The Mulvey agreement was thrown out the window by the county executive so all avenues were open.
who are lying dishonest cheats and why?

The CCB agreed to have two players representatives on the selection committee, the other members have a majority and elected Ger. Nothing in the Mulvey agreement was broken.

You can argue the spirit of the agreement was broken but thats intangible. It all depends on a persons opinion.

And yes I would agree the CB made the wrong choice and even agree they may have done it for simple revenge but Donal Og is just as guilty as they are. 

I must not have been clear in my last post... i support democratic processes but there is no democratic process in cork. well there hasn't been but there's about to be one.

Again, it all depends. To some people Zimbabwe is a democratic country when in fact its a dictatorship. North Korea has a parliment with elected politicians but its no more democratic then Nazi Germany was. \
Irelands a democracy on paper with a handful of gangsters in charge. etc

The CCB is democratic and the clubs if they had got off their asses could have changed things, which is what the players are doing right now so in actual fact Cork GAA is and was democratic, its just the voters weren't arsed practicing it.

You can't say they were democratic just because people were too lazy to vote for what they wanted.

i don't know why i have to keep repeating things for you, but one last time... i have no problem with the this cork team having a veto on this manager.

And what about a veto in the future on future managers ?

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.

we are not that far apart so sligeach.
However, a fundamental difference we have is the understanding of just how much authority FM has. I'm not from cork but have friends and relations there and spend a lot of time there.

Is not possible to get across how murphy goes about his business with one or two tales - its how he entwines and weaves his authority over everything through the smallest of details. for example, a few years ago a friend of mine was registrar for the club. part of his brief was organising everything to do with membersip and submitting applications for club teams to play in various leagues and championships. he missed the deadline for a senior team for the league and championship by a day (stupid fecker) and landed down to frank with all the documentation and the club cheque, cap in hand. "no bother" says frank, "sure tis only a guideline to get everyone's registration in a sort of on time".
our boy goes away happy enough wondering why he was worrying and having avoided the wrath of the club. 2 weeks later he gets a phone call from the club's county board delegate to query if he'd submitted said applications on time. no exactly but frank said there was no problem. frank had called the delegate that afternoon to count on his vote on 3 motions to be submitted for a vote that evening. 2 in particular there wasn't a chance the club would support. "ah well" says frank. ""tis a pity for your senior team the registrar didn't submit your application for the league and championship. i thought he had but i can't find it anywhere. maybe you can check with him and come back t me."

now that is one instance with one club and technically frank did nothing wrong. but i wonder how many arms he twisted that day to get his 3 motions forced through and how many favours he can maipulate any given week?

Another way to look at this GAA is that your friend wouldn't have been in this position if he had been able to do what he's supposed to do. Frank seems to be in his position because he is able to do what he's supposed to do. Of course that's all just a wee tale related by you and of no consequence to this debate, for all we know you might have made it up or spiced it up. Sure you didn't even tell us what the three motions were. And are you sure it was three, not four or maybe just two?

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

You couldn't have got it the other times GAA because i didn't relate to "at this stage" those other times, they were different stages. But you're entitled to your comments without fear of insult or attack. But why bother if you got it all the other times? So many pages on this thread and there's a good chance most posters have repeated themselves, and you never know maybe even you.
You know what's strange though, you put up something by Sean Moran where he makes the same point as me. So while you're criticising me for making a point, repeatedly in your eyes, and a very valid one at that, you're actually repeating that same point in the quote you put up.

"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." Sean Moran.

Now who would have believed it?

[orangeman]

Are you saying you don't understand the question?

If you could identify the payers, it would help.

[dowling]

And while at other times GAA I've said the 208 panel should pull back I added other points to that post. But you must have missed them in your hurry to get a smart retort on.

[The GAA]

Another way to look at this GAA is that your friend wouldn't have been in this position if he had been able to do what he's supposed to do. Frank seems to be in his position because he is able to do what he's supposed to do. Of course that's all just a wee tale related by you and of no consequence to this debate, for all we know you might have made it up or spiced it up. Sure you didn't even tell us what the three motions were. And are you sure it was three, not four or maybe just two?

He certainly is a spoon for not doing his job correctly, no doubt.
I could have made it up, its your perogative to decide.
it was 3 motions - they would have supported 1 anyway.

You couldn't have got it the other times GAA because i didn't relate to "at this stage" those other times, they were different stages. But you're entitled to your comments without fear of insult or attack. But why bother if you got it all the other times? So many pages on this thread and there's a good chance most posters have repeated themselves, and you never know maybe even you.
You know what's strange though, you put up something by Sean Moran where he makes the same point as me. So while you're criticising me for making a point, repeatedly in your eyes, and a very valid one at that, you're actually repeating that same point in the quote you put up.

"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." Sean Moran.

Now who would have believed it?

Have i attacked you personally for your nauseating repitiveness? i don't think i have.
everyone repeats themselves but your particular paragraph was a rehash of previous mantra unrelated to any of the points being discussed at the time. spam some people call it.
i don't believe i put up anything by sean moran?

[The GAA]

All down the years, there have been "incentives" provided to vote one way or another in significant or even insignifcant votes in all sports. Being on the panel for the Olympic games used to be great crack.

In GAA, significant votes were won / lost as a result of promises made, favours done, incentives given.

Some of the biggest decisions taken at Congress over the past 10 / 15 years would and could not have been made without votes being acquired. It's a culture in all democracies.

Reading is soooooooo dificult:

So therefore you have no problem with the players using their volunteerism as leverage to get a couple of votes their own way then?

[orangeman]

You're confusing yourself. are you now saying noone made a response to your satisfaction? you didn't like the response?
what is it that noone explained to you?

No. I appreciate your response for its honesty but noone has made an argument for defending their view that it isn't a veto, you said it was so therefore we have no argument on this subject.

So you are not saying the players are wrong to take a stance - thats progress at least. you are saying that you disagree with their methods?

Yes. And I'd even go one step further and say I don't disagree with their methods at this moment in time, regarding the way they are gathering support from the clubs. I in fact agree that Ger had his time and someone else should have been given the reigns.

I don't agree that;

- Ger is a particularly bad manager, I believe hes not the best man for the job in Cork at this stage yes, but calling him a bad manager etc is just wrong and making the players and their supporters look bad.
- The players should be 'on strike' or 'not playing' whatever way you wish to phrase it. It they truely loved Cork hurling and truely wanted to make things better for Cork hurling people they would still be playing but fighting tooth and nail for the clubs support to oust Ger. I would have no problem in the world with that. In fact I would support them in it and I believe its healthy for the GAA to have such movements.

In my opinion, the way the players are acting are remoniscent of schoolboy antics. Standing by your principles is all well and good but stand by them, through thick and thin and don't make excuses for them.

I take you missed the "cloyne motion" which is now being resubmitted?
The players can win this and they will. Brennan and cooney are already drawing up draught procedures for county boards to ensure they do things properly and avoid constituant parts of a county membership having to take severe action to ensure proper procedure.

No I didn't. Its just 5 months too late and it came about the wrong way and if the players win this (which in itself I don't mind) and get some kind of player veto on future managerial appointments then it will be a dark day for the GAA as a whole.

The Mulvey agreement was thrown out the window by the county executive so all avenues were open.
who are lying dishonest cheats and why?

The CCB agreed to have two players representatives on the selection committee, the other members have a majority and elected Ger. Nothing in the Mulvey agreement was broken.

You can argue the spirit of the agreement was broken but thats intangible. It all depends on a persons opinion.

And yes I would agree the CB made the wrong choice and even agree they may have done it for simple revenge but Donal Og is just as guilty as they are. 

I must not have been clear in my last post... i support democratic processes but there is no democratic process in cork. well there hasn't been but there's about to be one.

Again, it all depends. To some people Zimbabwe is a democratic country when in fact its a dictatorship. North Korea has a parliment with elected politicians but its no more democratic then Nazi Germany was. \
Irelands a democracy on paper with a handful of gangsters in charge. etc

The CCB is democratic and the clubs if they had got off their asses could have changed things, which is what the players are doing right now so in actual fact Cork GAA is and was democratic, its just the voters weren't arsed practicing it.

You can't say they were democratic just because people were too lazy to vote for what they wanted.

i don't know why i have to keep repeating things for you, but one last time... i have no problem with the this cork team having a veto on this manager.

And what about a veto in the future on future managers ?

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.

we are not that far apart so sligeach.
However, a fundamental difference we have is the understanding of just how much authority FM has. I'm not from cork but have friends and relations there and spend a lot of time there.

Is not possible to get across how murphy goes about his business with one or two tales - its how he entwines and weaves his authority over everything through the smallest of details. for example, a few years ago a friend of mine was registrar for the club. part of his brief was organising everything to do with membersip and submitting applications for club teams to play in various leagues and championships. he missed the deadline for a senior team for the league and championship by a day (stupid fecker) and landed down to frank with all the documentation and the club cheque, cap in hand. "no bother" says frank, "sure tis only a guideline to get everyone's registration in a sort of on time".
our boy goes away happy enough wondering why he was worrying and having avoided the wrath of the club. 2 weeks later he gets a phone call from the club's county board delegate to query if he'd submitted said applications on time. no exactly but frank said there was no problem. frank had called the delegate that afternoon to count on his vote on 3 motions to be submitted for a vote that evening. 2 in particular there wasn't a chance the club would support. "ah well" says frank. ""tis a pity for your senior team the registrar didn't submit your application for the league and championship. i thought he had but i can't find it anywhere. maybe you can check with him and come back t me."

now that is one instance with one club and technically frank did nothing wrong. but i wonder how many arms he twisted that day to get his 3 motions forced through and how many favours he can maipulate any given week?

Another way to look at this GAA is that your friend wouldn't have been in this position if he had been able to do what he's supposed to do. Frank seems to be in his position because he is able to do what he's supposed to do. Of course that's all just a wee tale related by you and of no consequence to this debate, for all we know you might have made it up or spiced it up. Sure you didn't even tell us what the three motions were. And are you sure it was three, not four or maybe just two?

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

You couldn't have got it the other times GAA because i didn't relate to "at this stage" those other times, they were different stages. But you're entitled to your comments without fear of insult or attack. But why bother if you got it all the other times? So many pages on this thread and there's a good chance most posters have repeated themselves, and you never know maybe even you.
You know what's strange though, you put up something by Sean Moran where he makes the same point as me. So while you're criticising me for making a point, repeatedly in your eyes, and a very valid one at that, you're actually repeating that same point in the quote you put up.

"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." Sean Moran.

Now who would have believed it?

[/b]

I  made this point as recently as last night. It moght take a generation for these wounds to fully heal.

[The GAA]

And while at other times GAA I've said the 208 panel should pull back I added other points to that post. But you must have missed them in your hurry to get a smart retort on.

am i missing something - why is this relvent?

[dowling]

My apologie for that GAA, it was passedit, you two seem so similar.
Anyway I presume you'll be castigating him for repeating me repeating myself.

[orangeman]

All down the years, there have been "incentives" provided to vote one way or another in significant or even insignifcant votes in all sports. Being on the panel for the Olympic games used to be great crack.

In GAA, significant votes were won / lost as a result of promises made, favours done, incentives given.

Some of the biggest decisions taken at Congress over the past 10 / 15 years would and could not have been made without votes being acquired. It's a culture in all democracies.

Reading is soooooooo dificult:

So therefore you have no problem with the players using their volunteerism as leverage to get a couple of votes their own way then?

Players - you typed payers before that. A volunteer is someone that does something for nothing which is not what we're dealing with here.

[dowling]

And while at other times GAA I've said the 208 panel should pull back I added other points to that post. But you must have missed them in your hurry to get a smart retort on.

am i missing something - why is this relvent?

You could quite well be missing something GAA but who am I to comment on that.
What I don't understand about you though why you so often tackle posters rather than the post. If the post isn't relevent for you so what? If you think it's rubbish so what? What's wrong with showing the stupidity of posts in a logical mature way or just ignoring them?

[The GAA]

Sligeach had no problem understanding and answering the question so the problem must be with your comprehension.

its a simple question in response to your post. if you're not capable of answering (again) i can draw my own conclusions

[The GAA]

You could quite well be missing something GAA but who am I to comment on that.
What I don't understand about you though why you so often tackle posters rather than the post. If the post isn't relevent for you so what? If you think it's rubbish so what? What's wrong with showing the stupidity of posts in a logical mature way or just ignoring them?

I prefer to engage in reasoned and logical debate - thats just me.
when someone sporadically asks what colour cheese on the moon is, in response to a particular topic, it makes things difficult to reason through

if i then point out this is not relevent i'm attcking the poster!
of course i'm attcking the poster

[orangeman]

Sligeach had no problem understanding and answering the question so the problem must be with your comprehension.

its a simple question in response to your post. if you're not capable of answering (again) i can draw my own conclusions

Fair enough. You got my answer. We're not talking about the volunteers.

[The GAA]

So,

you are stating here that the cork hurlers are not volunteers, none of them?

[orangeman]

So,

you are stating here that the cork hurlers are not volunteers, none of them?

Do they not get paid ?