McCarthy admits he does not have backing of Cork hurlers

[heffo]

Hurlers denied membership = Cork hurling panel 2009

Junior C hurlers who are members = any hurler in the country can join the GPA (except those who don't kow-tow to prominent GPA members wishes)

Anyone can show solidarity in any gathering as they see fit - just happens to be a co-incidence that this individual is a high profile member of the GPA..

The 2009 were not and have not been denied membership to my knowledge

County hurlers can join the gpa - not sure too many of them should be classed as junior c (indiana will be on you shortly for using that description)

Surely heffo you can see that brian corcoran would be entitled to express his own support within a situation like this in his own county? to say its a signifcant he's a gpa member is silly

The 2009 were not and have not been denied membership to my knowledge - http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/mhsnidojqlid/

County hurlers can join the gpa - not sure too many of them should be classed as junior c (indiana will be on you shortly for using that description) - any GAA player can join the GPA

Surely heffo you can see that brian corcoran would be entitled to express his own support within a situation like this in his own county? to say its a signifcant he's a gpa member is silly - all these co-incidences keep piling up...

[heffo]

Feel free topoint out which one

it's actually 2 out of 3 and I've done so in my previous post.

[The GAA]

The 2009 were not and have not been denied membership to my knowledge - http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/mhsnidojqlid/

County hurlers can join the gpa - not sure too many of them should be classed as junior c (indiana will be on you shortly for using that description) - any GAA player can join the GPA

Surely heffo you can see that brian corcoran would be entitled to express his own support within a situation like this in his own county? to say its a signifcant he's a gpa member is silly - all these co-incidences keep piling up...

They have not been denied membership. none of them have applied and i'm reliably informed they would/could not be denied membership if they did.

You're talking about associate membership, i'm talking about full membrship

[RedandGreenSniper]

I'd have a number of issues, none of them serious, but would prefer not to discuss the here

Ah come on now.
Unless its something that no one knows and cannot be divulged, you can't come along and say you have issues with the players and then are unwilling to elaborate.

[The GAA]

Signing off now sniper but will answer you tomorrow

[Zulu]

Zulu I think the emphasis you put on a certain aspect of my post and twist it is indicative of pro-posters on here. Not only can you not see and understand what's in front of you, neither can you see what lies ahead.

Ah stop now dowling your 'pro-player posters are foul mouthed, post twisting, simpeltons' routine is growing tiresome, maybe you can tell those of us who lack your soothsaying ability what the future holds?

Zulu seeing as I've been obliging answering your questions see if you can help me out with this one and do me a favour.

If 140 odd clubs were at the panel's meeting and each club were to be represented by the chair and another how were there over 400 delegates there? There might be something logical I'm missing so if you can help.

How many of the senior hurling clubs are expected to take a vote, I heard not many.

Well you haven't answered my question unless posting up your old posts which were long on text but light on opinion counts as answering. However I will attempt to answer your question, there were up to 160 clubs represented according to some reports but since everyone signed in it should be easy to find out where all those who were at the meeting came from and in what role. I have no doubt there were some people there who weren't representing clubs but the fact that there was overwhelming support for the players at the meeting and there were at least 140 clubs represented is surely the only pertinent point here. The fact is that support for the players seems to be widespread and impressively large, this was always going to be the case when push came to shove. The CB sought out this fight in the hope that the players would be weakend by the Mulvey agreement and that the public would be tired of all this 'striking', in the end they were wrong on both counts. If the future of Cork GAA is dark, then this CB will stand indited, say what you want about the players at least their actions were motivated by the good of one aspect of Cork GAA - intercounty hurling, the CB can't even claim that.

[Reillers]

Pray democracy is finally coming to the Cork GAA

The players group have made a brave stand and are leading the way. They deserve the support of every follower and club that value the truth, writes JOHN ALLEN

THE LAST time I wrote on the topic of the striking Cork hurlers I finished with what might now be a very telling sentence, "Maybe a proper revolution is needed this time". This revolution has been needed for years but no individual or group has been brave or maybe foolish enough to attempt change in the Cork GAA board.

The older members of the group of striking players were never on for settling for second best and at the end of 2002, after a very bitter stand-off with the board, they brought about a change in, to use a topical term, terms and conditions which helped smooth the way to a period of high achievement over the following four years.

These were special years for the very loyal Rebel supporters. A new generation of Cork follower began to acknowledge the beauty, grace, skill and speed of this wonderful Irish game.

The players blossomed and gave some outstanding displays. For all those lucky enough to be involved, these were the "days of our lives". The performances, victories and losses (even) were much appreciated by the very enthusiastic support that travelled in their thousands – with or without tickets.

Who will ever forget the scramble for tickets before the Munster finals? Who will forget the delays getting to Killarney in '04 or that legend Brian Corcoran putting the final nail in the Kilkenny coffin, while on his knees that same year?

The loss to the Déise in that year's Munster final epic will long stay in the memory, as will the resurrection against Clare in the '05 All-Ireland semi or the wonderful save from above the crossbar by Dónal Óg in the following year's semi-final. Yes, these were the days of our lives.

From the first post-strike session with the players on a bitterly cold January 2003 morning it was very obvious that, while manager Dónal O Grady was a strict disciplinarian, he was also very sensitive to the players' needs. Let me also add there were never any outrageous demands.

I've been lucky enough to have been involved with many successful teams over the past 30 years but this group of hurlers, in my opinion, ticked all the boxes. They are diligent, hard working and people of honour. Whatever needed to be done to play and win for Cork was always the priority. They are the most self-motivated group you're ever likely too meet.

They treated all in the management with the utmost respect, a respect that was reciprocated. The group worked well together and enjoyed four quite successful years even though Kilkenny did undo our three-in-a-row dream.

At various times the rumour and innuendo mill carried stories of the players running affairs in 2005/'06 and this was part of the reason they couldn't buy into the new regime of Gerald McCarthy .

Yes, the players were given an input into the tactics for the championship games. Yes, Dónal Óg had an input into the plans for the pucks out (after all he did take these very important free pucks). Yes, we were always sensitive to player concerns.

No, the players never had any input into who was on the panel. No, the players never had any input into team selections. No the players never had any input into changes made on match days. No the players hadn't any input into the training drills, either devising or executing them.

So how did it all come unstuck?

Well, the decision not to continue with members of the previous management for season '07 was the beginning of what now looks like the end. That has been well documented as has the next major stand-off last winter.

But here we are again in a similar position. I've already laid the blame at the board executive's door. It's still lying there though, unacknowledged.

They, the board executive, five in number, sat down with the players, two in number, to decide on who would wear the mantle of Cork senior hurling manager for 2009. The five, who must have known all wasn't well in the camp over the previous two years, decided the previous incumbent would be contacted to ascertain his further interest in the post. Having received a positive response the five decided his name would be top of a list of potential candidates. He would then be offered the post and if he accepted (which they knew he would) then the job was his. Now I know there were five meetings but that is the essence of what took place, as far as I'm aware.

In other words there was no point in the players nominating candidates. In fact, with the total lack of courtesy and respect shown to the same players, the meetings were a waste of time and an insult to the people of integrity representing the players.

All that has been played out in the media since is a result of that decision to totally disregard the wishes of the players. This split in Cork GAA is the board's legacy. They have engineered this crisis and nurtured it.

McCarthy, the 30 Cork players and the development squad have come in for scathing comment from all quarters. Did the board learn any lessons from last year's stand-off? Obviously not.

I've said before I don't think the players should have any representative on the committee which chooses the manager. Of course their wishes should be considered – as is done in most clubs and counties.

Are the board executive, now, going to preside over this Pyrrhic victory and feel democracy was upheld to the letter of the law? What is democratic about not allowing any other candidate be interviewed for the job? Why were the board delegates not made aware the players' representatives had a major problem with the reappointment of Gerald McCarthy? What was the point in having two players' reps on the committee if the strongly held wishes and opinions of the squad they represented would be totally ignored?

But maybe the tide is beginning to turn. The clubs of the county might be about to take back the power which they have been without for many years now.

It's gone on long enough. The charade has to stop. We've waited long enough for a solution. The board executive is responsible for this calamity but Gerald McCarthy is the fall guy.

This is not about player power. It's about integrity, honesty, truth and transparency. Sadly these now don't exist between the players and the executive. Gerald McCarthy has been used. He has lost the dressingroom and cannot hope to succeed with a team who don't want to play for him.

The revolution is gathering momentum. The malaise that is eating away at board level needs to be addressed before it does any further damage. The '08 players group have made a very brave stand and are leading the way. They deserve the support of every follower and club that value the truth. Gandhi said: "Almost anything you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it."

[dowling]

Zulu I think the emphasis you put on a certain aspect of my post and twist it is indicative of pro-posters on here. Not only can you not see and understand what's in front of you, neither can you see what lies ahead.

Ah stop now dowling your 'pro-player posters are foul mouthed, post twisting, simpeltons' routine is growing tiresome, maybe you can tell those of us who lack your soothsaying ability what the future holds?

Zulu seeing as I've been obliging answering your questions see if you can help me out with this one and do me a favour.

If 140 odd clubs were at the panel's meeting and each club were to be represented by the chair and another how were there over 400 delegates there? There might be something logical I'm missing so if you can help.

How many of the senior hurling clubs are expected to take a vote, I heard not many.

Well you haven't answered my question unless posting up your old posts which were long on text but light on opinion counts as answering. However I will attempt to answer your question, there were up to 160 clubs represented according to some reports but since everyone signed in it should be easy to find out where all those who were at the meeting came from and in what role. I have no doubt there were some people there who weren't representing clubs but the fact that there was overwhelming support for the players at the meeting and there were at least 140 clubs represented is surely the only pertinent point here. The fact is that support for the players seems to be widespread and impressively large, this was always going to be the case when push came to shove. The CB sought out this fight in the hope that the players would be weakend by the Mulvey agreement and that the public would be tired of all this 'striking', in the end they were wrong on both counts. If the future of Cork GAA is dark, then this CB will stand indited, say what you want about the players at least their actions were motivated by the good of one aspect of Cork GAA - intercounty hurling, the CB can't even claim that.

Long on text short on mathematics.
Ok say 160 but that's the first time I've seen or heard of that figure.
160 multplied by 2 = 320
So where does the 400 or more figure come from.


I thought my first post answered your question and show my consistency in the debate. Maybe you're just seeing something that isn't there.


But how does the 400 or more come about?

[Zulu]

Ok I'll try this again, here is what I posted in response to your question........

there were up to 160 clubs represented according to some reports but since everyone signed in it should be easy to find out where all those who were at the meeting came from and in what role. I have no doubt there were some people there who weren't representing clubs but the fact that there was overwhelming support for the players at the meeting and there were at least 140 clubs represented is surely the only pertinent point here.

Now the bit in bold is speculation on my part but since I wasn't at the meeting that is all I can do, however you seem to think that between 80 - 120 or so non-clubmen, and we don't know that for sure, somehow takes away from the validity of the support 140-160 clubs displayed for the players that night or am I twisting your opinion again.

I thought my first post answered your question and show my consistency in the debate. Maybe you're just seeing something that isn't there.

I think your seeing something that isn't there if you think your post displayed an opinion but humour me here, I genuinely don't know what you are arguing, so answer me these few simple questions,

1. Are you pro-player?

2. If not why not?

3. We all know and accept there is blame all round and we all accept that the CB aren't evil incarnate but I believe, as do the other pro-player posters that this mess was caused by the CB to put the players back in their box and that any sensible person wouldn't have reappointed Gerald, do you disagree with any of that?

[Zulu]

Clondrohid 30-0 in favour of both motions

Kilshannig voted last night 62-9 against Gerald and 74 -4 in favour of second motion.

Thats two more clubs resoundingly supporting the players, it will be interesting to see what the CB will do now.

[orangeman]

John Allen makes some very valid points and it was nice to get lost for a moment in the reminiscence therapy of the 2004 victory etc etc. The days he recalled were indeed the "days of our lives" but isn't it sad to be in the mess that we're in now,given that the glory days were only a few years ago ?. How do you go to such highs to such lows in a mere couple of seasons ?.

I was watching the news tonight and this was the 30th anniversary of the miners strike in England when the unions took on the govt and lost - those involved still hold deep hatred of all those on the other side of the strike, eg the strikers hated the police, the govt and all who opposed them. When one striker was asked what he thought of those who had crossed the picket line, he quickly replied, " I wouldn't even speak to him if I met him on the street and some of these lads were among some of my best friends. Once a scab, always a scab."

I hope that a similar legacy is not felt in Cork in the years to come but I suspect it will.


On another note,John Allen is very much siding with the 2008 panel and I wouldn't expect him to do otherwise but surely he's not endearing himself to Gerald in this very public display of support ?

Maybe the Cork posters can tell me this - has everybody in Cork with regard to this dispute, chosen one side or the other or are there people who have remained on the fence ?.

[anglocelt39]

Pray democracy is finally coming to the Cork GAA


Feckit Reillers never let reallity get in the way of talking up a petty little sports squabble. The last time people had reason to pray for democracy down in Cork was when Mick Collins was taking the fight to the Tans. Your current little row is unlikely to be up there with the struggles that are going on in Zimbawbe or went on in South Africa 20 years ago. You're not a caption writer for the Daily Mail in your spare time by any chance?

[INDIANA]

I appreciate you are not setting out a justifcation for the route that the playrs took and that the players are blameless - certainly i don't believe that they are.

however, given the circumstances i believe the players had to make the choices they did if they really wanted to get action. eggs and omlettes and all that.

i have great admiration for their resolve in the face of consistent abuse of them personally and as a group

Had they taken the appropriate action of going through the clubs in the first place , maybe they'd be back playing by now.

[Reillers]

Pray democracy is finally coming to the Cork GAA


Feckit Reillers never let reallity get in the way of talking up a petty little sports squabble. The last time people had reason to pray for democracy down in Cork was when Mick Collins was taking the fight to the Tans. Your current little row is unlikely to be up there with the struggles that are going on in Zimbawbe or went on in South Africa 20 years ago. You're not a caption writer for the Daily Mail in your spare time by any chance?

Would you relax, tone down the dramatics, I clearly didn't write it.

[dowling]

Ok I'll try this again, here is what I posted in response to your question........

there were up to 160 clubs represented according to some reports but since everyone signed in it should be easy to find out where all those who were at the meeting came from and in what role. I have no doubt there were some people there who weren't representing clubs but the fact that there was overwhelming support for the players at the meeting and there were at least 140 clubs represented is surely the only pertinent point here.

Now the bit in bold is speculation on my part but since I wasn't at the meeting that is all I can do, however you seem to think that between 80 - 120 or so non-clubmen, and we don't know that for sure, somehow takes away from the validity of the support 140-160 clubs displayed for the players that night or am I twisting your opinion again.

I thought my first post answered your question and show my consistency in the debate. Maybe you're just seeing something that isn't there.

I think your seeing something that isn't there if you think your post displayed an opinion but humour me here, I genuinely don't know what you are arguing, so answer me these few simple questions,

1. Are you pro-player?

2. If not why not?

3. We all know and accept there is blame all round and we all accept that the CB aren't evil incarnate but I believe, as do the other pro-player posters that this mess was caused by the CB to put the players back in their box and that any sensible person wouldn't have reappointed Gerald, do you disagree with any of that?

239 clubs in Cork Zulu and you've put up the results of less than twenty, probably some of the most pro 2008 panel anyway and that's why their votes are in early, and we're all to believe what? That's it the war's over, the clubs have spoken? Let's wait until Sunday when the votes are in and the clubs who don't vote are counted.
Maybe even the clubs' meeting before that when there's no county board and no panel present might throw up something. Who knows?

Just like the figure of over 400 for the panel's meeting. Where did that come from? Who knows. If there were people there not representing clubs who were they and what were they doing there? Who knows. Seems a bit strange to me that specific persons were asked to attend a meeting with specific ID but there's a number that doesn't tally yet we don't know how that number came about.