McCarthy admits he does not have backing of Cork hurlers

[Tatler Jack]

Amazing how Kieran Shannon takes everything the players say at face value without ever posing a hard question.

[dowling]

The 2008 panel had a conference call amongst 10 of them and they decide to let everyone decide for themselves and nobody turns up

Jesus help me, 5 of them turned up and there was no boycott, some of ye are bit like the CB and just can't let it go.

We can't let go? We didn't write the article.
Five turn up and you think yhat's fine regardless or not of a boycott?
Another 25 of the 2008 panel who spent how many nights a week with Gerald and how many weeks of the year and 25 of them felt it wasn't important to sympathise with a man with whom they had spent so much time on the death of his mother?

Donal og or John Gardiner could have written that article. It's totally without any balance and an unnecessary pop at Gerald. Of course people can write what they want but at least try to see imbalance yourself.
This article is nothing more than a pr exercise directed at the players yet getting their way, ie Donal OGrady in the job. There's no doubt that Gerald's claims about the non-attendance at his mother's funeral threw a bad light on the 2008 panel and that had to be rubbished in an attempt to claw back some lost credibility.
It's quite clear that the author of this article stands in the 2008 panel's camp and thus I wouldn't give this any credibility.


"The matter of whether to go to the funeral en masse took considerably longer."

Reading between the lines does that mean there were some who wanted to go on masse but that the opinion of others won out? It would seem so.

The 2008 panel will be working away of the next few weeks to get Donal OGrady into the manager's job. There's no doubt as part of that campaign this 'story' has been fed to a sympathetic journalist and there will be more to come.

[Zulu]

Ok then Zulu, do you think it was a coincidence that they didn't turn up at the funeral, not even ONE of them, given that a conference call amongst 10 of the 30 had a conference call on the Sunday decided that they wouldn't go as a gropu but instead "voted" that they would send a mass card ??.


This issue shows how pathetic and out of touch the 2008 panel were in the midst of this dispute and how much they had lost touch with reality.


On this issue amogst others, the 2008 panel really let themselves down.

5 of them turned up and they said why they didn't go as a group, the issue here isn't how patethic the players are but how patethic some posters have become. It doesn't matter what the players do or say some of you will find fault with it and will post your thoughts here, nobody is saying these guys are saints but some of ye are coming across a bit obsessive about this. It is done and it looks like Cork are moving on, time will reveal if the will benefit or suffer from what has gone on. What are the anti-player posters trying to achieve by repeating arguments made 100 times already, nothing that is currently in the public domain will change any pro-player's opinion and clearly yer not going to change yer opinion so what is being achieved by re-doing the same arguments?


Case in point here with dowling but one more so, you said......

Another 25 of the 2008 panel who spent how many nights a week with Gerald and how many weeks of the year and 25 of them felt it wasn't important to sympathise with a man with whom they had spent so much time on the death of his mother?

........and the article said...

The general consensus was that if they all went, it could come across as inflammatory, insincere and insensitive, transforming the event into a point-scoring circus;

Now i think that is a reasonable stance, you may not but I won't change my mind and I suppose you won't change yours so what is there to discuss?

[Reillers]

Oh right so what ye are saying is that everything Gerald says. ie the boycott and such, and whatever the journos who write things pro Gerald are all sensible good journos..etc. and everything they say should be taken at face value.
But anything that comes out of the players camp can't be taken at face value and any journos that write things that show the players in good line is unsympathetic and bias.
And you call us bias.

[orangeman]

Zulu - you claim that everyone in Cork is moving on. Do you call feeding stories to sympathetic journos like Shannon, Humphries and Keys in an attempt to get their "preferred" manager put in as permanent manager as moving on ?

How you think that Cork might benefit from the outragoeus goings on as past few months and in particular the last few weeks is beyond me but time will tell - I've a feeling it will take many, many years to get over this. I know for sure that relationships that have been damaged during this strike will take a very long time to repair themselves. As Sean Og said, he'll die happy knowing that what he did was right.  

[Zulu]

Zulu - you claim that everyone in Cork is moving on. Do you call feeding stories to sympathetic journos like Shannon, Humphries and Keys in an attempt to get their "preferred" manager put in as permanent manager as moving on

Who's feeding stories? Anyway it is all done and it's time you moved on, there is nothing left to say.

[Reillers]

Zulu - you claim that everyone in Cork is moving on. Do you call feeding stories to sympathetic journos like Shannon, Humphries and Keys in an attempt to get their "preferred" manager put in as permanent manager as moving on ?

How you think that Cork might benefit from the outragoeus goings on as past few months and in particular the last few weeks is beyond me but time will tell - I've a feeling it will take many, many years to get over this. I know for sure that relationships that have been damaged during this strike will take a very long time to repair themselves. As Sean Og said, he'll die happy knowing that what he did was right.  

Oh that's right everyone who backs the players are sympathetic journos, the ones that criticize them are respectable good ones right?

[orangeman]

You might not have any criticism over the 2008 panel's decision not to attend Gerald's mother's funeral but plenty of people have. We're reading in a newspaper article a story fed by the 2008 panel ( who don't have it within themselves to issue a statment in the wake of the biggest, most divisive issue in the history of Cork GAA ) about a conference call between 10 of the 2008 panel who decide that the best thing to do is to send a mass card to the manager who has spent 2 years of his life with these lads, a man who defended them to the hilt when Semplegate happened, a man who spoke eloquently in the wake of the suspensions and a man who gave Nicky Brennan such a hard time on the players' behalf that Nicky hung up on him. In the event, the 2008 panel tell us that Gerald told them not to send the mass card  ( Gerald as always is very mannerly - I'd have told them where to put their mass card ) - I wonder did they have a conference call to vote on whether or not to send the mass card ??

It't time the players stopped using Keys, Humphries, Shannon and others and came out themselves and put on record what happened. Gerald can do it  - why can't the 2008 panel ?? Why ? Cause they're relying on a few "smart" journos to twist the stories for them in an attmept to weasel their way out of a very embarasing situation. Where is the statement of condemnation from the players about the death threats to Gerald ?? I suppose they'll say, sure that's not our problem ??

And all you say is " Anyway it is all done and it's time you moved on, there is nothing left to say."

Very good Zulu.


And as usual Reillers continues to live in the wee word reserved for dreamers by saying that journos who back the 2008 panel are wrong and those who criticise them are respectable ? Not even worthy of comment, your remarks are so childish.

[Tatler Jack]

Oh that's right everyone who backs the players are sympathetic journos, the ones that criticize them are respectable good ones right?

No Reillers - wrong. In fact I would prefer if journalists did some real journalisitc work and established the facts rather than being blatantly in one camp or other(though few enough in the CB camp). Shannon has made no effort in this dispute to be impartial - instead he has accepted everything the players tell him as fact and then puts a convenient spin on it. He has no credibility on this issue.

As for the funeral I am not sure that it should have been brought into this dispute. However there was no need for the players to have any conference call. Decency would have ensured that they went to the funeral as most people would do in Ireland regardless of what had happened. There is a tradition in this country that we put all else aside when someone we know is bereaved. Why they needed to discuss the isses as a group and explore the PR pros and cons is beyond me. They should have gone as individuals and the abscence of some of the more senior players reflects poorly on them No amount of spinnning by Shannon will change that.

[Zulu]

The players explained their position, they felt if they all went that it might be interpreted "as inflammatory, insincere and insensitive, transforming the event into a point-scoring circus", you may not accept this but I do. Neither of us know if that was the reason or not but you want to see something bad in everything the panel do, I don't. What is your point in posting about this, is it just venting? All your doing is raking over old news, this happened a good while ago now and I'm sure we argued the issue at the time, what is your reason for trying to do so again?

[dowling]

Zulu - you claim that everyone in Cork is moving on. Do you call feeding stories to sympathetic journos like Shannon, Humphries and Keys in an attempt to get their "preferred" manager put in as permanent manager as moving on

Who's feeding stories? Anyway it is all done and it's time you moved on, there is nothing left to say.

Zulu I used to give you a little more credit but you've either closed your mind or you have more in common with Reillers that I thought.
How could the content of that article not come from the 2008 panel when it alleges information on their meetings and the impression individuals had of conversations with the county chairman?

But if the information is true why don't they come out and say it themselves and why don't they come out and condemn the death threat. I disbelieve what is purported in the article because the 2008 panel have been dishonest in their dealings in this whole dispute and even Shannon is trying to put a spin on what Sean og said about working with Frank Murphy.

I said a while back in this dispute that the 2008 panel didn't know where this was heading and I stand by that. Now however there seems to be an element of shrewdness in what they do. And there's a new target to get Donal OGrady into the job.
You talk about moving on? I'd be interested to know if John Considine thought that article was moving on.

Quite clearly, in view of Donal OGrady saying on radio that he would only take the manager's job in the interim period and only as a last choice but that his preferred choice was Jimmy Barry, members of the 2008 panel have approached him and it's not like Reillers said that he offered to take the job. What's wrong with someone else's name being in the hat?
No doubt Shannon doesn't look kindly on the county board but why such unnecessary attention on Considine?

No doubt also that Shannon is disappointed the clubs haven't sought a purge against the county board.
Maybe in view of Gerald's statement some of the clubs' memberships are beginning to realise that this whole affair wasn't just as clear cut as the 2008 panel made out.


And do you really think that out a group of 30 grown men who had spent so much time with Gerald that 25 not turning up to the wake and none at all turning up to the funeral is the norm in Irish society?

[dowling]

The players explained their position, they felt if they all went that it might be interpreted "as inflammatory, insincere and insensitive, transforming the event into a point-scoring circus", you may not accept this but I do. Neither of us know if that was the reason or not but you want to see something bad in everything the panel do, I don't. What is your point in posting about this, is it just venting? All your doing is raking over old news, this happened a good while ago now and I'm sure we argued the issue at the time, what is your reason for trying to do so again?

Just to be clear on this Zulu.

No one from this board wrote that article.
Shannon wrote it so maybe you should drop him an e mail.

So what do you think were his reasons for writing it and at this time?

[Zulu]

dowling you're no different to OM, you want to find offence and is disagreeeing with you a 'closed mind'?

[Reillers]

Oh that's right everyone who backs the players are sympathetic journos, the ones that criticize them are respectable good ones right?

No Reillers - wrong. In fact I would prefer if journalists did some real journalisitc work and established the facts rather than being blatantly in one camp or other(though few enough in the CB camp). Shannon has made no effort in this dispute to be impartial - instead he has accepted everything the players tell him as fact and then puts a convenient spin on it. He has no credibility on this issue.

As for the funeral I am not sure that it should have been brought into this dispute. However there was no need for the players to have any conference call. Decency would have ensured that they went to the funeral as most people would do in Ireland regardless of what had happened. There is a tradition in this country that we put all else aside when someone we know is bereaved. Why they needed to discuss the isses as a group and explore the PR pros and cons is beyond me. They should have gone as individuals and the abscence of some of the more senior players reflects poorly on them No amount of spinnning by Shannon will change that.

That's the way that likes of OM are simplyfing it. If he knows what happened and he says it what's the problem there, the rest of the article irrelevant he clearly knows what happens with the funeral, it's not taking sides on that, it's just saying what happened.
McCarthy brought it up it, the funeral that is.
They were in a no win situation and you know that, come on, what they all go and then that's seen as something else. A few went to the removal, the pushed back the meeting with the clubs, they also were going to send a mass card which McCarthy told them not to bother, how can that be seen as? Which McCarthy also failed to mention.
They made a decision, they're getting grief for it, if they other had happened ye'd still probably be giving them abuse. Things had gotten really bitter and heated over the past few months and both sides said things, maybe the players just didn't think it was right going, I don't know.

I don't think it should be discussed or dragged but remember it was McCarthy who brought it up, no mention of the clubs, no mention of the protesters, just making accusations that he can't back up.

Like I said, acording to your lot, OM and Co it's always the people who write things like this backing the players who are spinning things, never once have I heard any of ye accuse the other journos who've wrote anything that backs McCarthy as spinning.

[dowling]

dowling you're no different to OM, you want to find offence and is disagreeeing with you a 'closed mind'?

This might come as a surprise to you Zulu but I would be in agreement with OM on most of this.

How can you accuse us of going over old ground and not apply the same to Shannon?


Answer the last question in my previous post logically and we'll see how your mind works.