Should Cork be excluded this year?

UpTheSlashers

I dont see why they should be thrown out, its not as if their problems affect other teams and it definitely isnt giving them an unfair advantage.

Hitman Actual

baztard wrote: »

They have 2 votes out of 5, but they want 5 out 5. It really is that simple.

Source?

baztard

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Source?

Let me rephrase that... They have 2 votes out of 5, but they're acting like they want 5 out of 5. Like I said before, they want a veto on who the manager is.

Orizio

My mind changes on everything at a nearly hourly basis Deise.

Hitman Actual

baztard wrote: »

Let me rephrase that... They have 2 votes out of 5, but they're acting like they want 5 out of 5. Like I said before, they want a veto on who the manager is.

So when the players continually say they don't want the right to choose the manager, you don't believe them?

premierstone

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So when the players continually say they don't want the right to choose the manager, you don't believe them?

And you do?

spillcoe

baztard wrote: »

On your points...

They have 2 votes out of 5, but they want 5 out 5. It really is that simple.

There is no way that this issue can be pared down to such a simplistic point. The players have repeatedly said they do not want to pick their own manager. They were part of a process and as part of that process they said there was only one man they did not want and this was the person that was forced upon them. This kind of attitude is typical of the county board in that they used their majority voting power to bully the players and completely ignored the spirit of the process.

Anyone such as baztard who thinks that they can summarise this issue in one short sentence clearly doesn't have a clue what is going on.

baztard

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So when the players continually say they don't want the right to choose the manager, you don't believe them?

Yes - they say they dont want to choose the manager, but their actions demonstrate the opposite. Actions speak louder than words.

Hitman Actual

premierstone wrote: »

And you do?

Absolutely, and I gave my opinion in the other thread. And to believe otherwise is making the statement that the players are liars.

Hitman Actual

baztard wrote: »

Yes - they say they dont want to choose the manager, but their actions demonstrate the opposite. Actions speak louder than words.

So it's your assertion that the players are liars?

Waylander

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Absolutely, and I gave my opinion in the other thread. And to believe otherwise is making the statement that the players are liars.

They clearly are liars. They came to an agreement about the management selection process a year ago, and now they are not honouring it. They got the two men on the committe they demanded, but they were still outvoted. So they threw their toys out of the pram again.

I really dont understand how anyone cant see this!

premierstone

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Absolutely, and I gave my opinion in the other thread. And to believe otherwise is making the statement that the players are liars.

Well there you have it then glad we agree

Hitman Actual

Waylander wrote: »

They came to an agreement about the management selection process a year ago, and now they are not honouring it.

Okay, but how do you get to the point of knowing what part of the agreement they haven't honored?

Gotta go out for a while now, back later...

premierstone

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Okay, but how do you get to the point of knowing what part of the agreement they haven't honored?

Gotta go out for a while now, back later...

They agreed that they would not resort to strike action in the future, so they stated this year that they are not on strike but merely making themselves unavailable so yes they havent honoured there agreement and are being petty about it aswell but yet they are the very ones questioning the integrity of everyone else invloved :rolleyes:

Waylander

spillcoe wrote: »

Waylander wrote: »

They got the two men on the committe they demanded quote]


I think you'll find they never demanded to have anyone on the committee. This was a condition set by the arbitration and not something that was sought by the players.

Right fair enough, but the players agreed to honour the agreement, right up till they didnt get what they want again. Kind of makes me think that coming to an agreement with them this year is pointless, if they dont get exactly what they want next year, they will do the same thing again. I can say this with a measure of confidence because this is the third time they have done it.

spillcoe

Waylander wrote: »

They clearly are liars. They came to an agreement about the management selection process a year ago, and now they are not honouring it. They got the two men on the committe they demanded, but they were still outvoted. So they threw their toys out of the pram again.

I really dont understand how anyone cant see this!

I think you'll find they never demanded to have anyone on the committee. This was a condition set by the arbitration and not something that was sought by the players.

Also seeing as you are calling the players liars would you also say that Gerald McCarthy is a liar for saying that he would only stay in charge if the players wanted him. Clearly the players do not want him so......

turly

A quote I saw during the week: In every other sport, if the manager loses the dressing room, the manager walks.

Only in the tenth circle of hell that is Cork Gaa officialdom does this rule not apply.

Waylander

I would like to say that while I dont like the ideas of players striking, I am not totally oppossed to it in principal, and believe that therer are times where such extremeties are called for. I do not believe that these extremes arise every year, and this is where my problem is with the Cork squad. This is their 3rd time striking despite a clear understanding when last years issues were resolved, not to strike again.

This is why I am oppossed to the 2008 Cork squad, even if people do negotiate with them, they will just ignore the agreement made when it suits them.

In Cork I believe general opinion is with the players, and I am quite surprised by this. I know that allot of the public dislike Frank Murphys hold over Cork GAA, but for me that is another issue, and one that Cork GAA made for itself by giving Frank a lietime appointment. I think outside of Cork, general opinion is against the players, and the reason for this is the Frank Murphy factor is not given as much attention.

spillcoe

Waylander wrote: »

spillcoe wrote: »

Right fair enough, but the players agreed to honour the agreement, right up till they didnt get what they want again. Kind of makes me think that coming to an agreement with them this year is pointless, if they dont get exactly what they want next year, they will do the same thing again. I can say this with a measure of confidence because this is the third time they have done it.

I could see your point if the players were doing this repeatedly with no just cause but as far as I am concerned they have been right every time even if they could have gone about it in a more constructive and less confrontational manner. (They have themselves acknowledged that they have made mistake and could have handled the situation a bit better).

baztard

Hitman Actual wrote: »

So it's your assertion that the players are liars?

No.
The players say "We do NOT want to choose our own manager"
Players Statement

but I do think they want a to hold a veto on a choosen manager. Its only a subtle difference.

Waylander

spillcoe wrote: »

Waylander wrote: »

I could see your point if the players were doing this repeatedly with no just cause but as far as I am concerned they have been right every time even if they could have gone about it in a more constructive and less confrontational manner. (They have themselves acknowledged that they have made mistake and could have handled the situation a bit better).

I can see your point also, but to my mind, 3 times in 7 years is close enough to repeatedly.

Hitman Actual

Waylander wrote: »

This is their 3rd time striking despite a clear understanding when last years issues were resolved, not to strike again.

premierstone wrote:

They agreed that they would not resort to strike action in the future, so they stated this year that they are not on strike but merely making themselves unavailable so yes they havent honoured there agreement and are being petty about it aswell but yet they are the very ones questioning the integrity of everyone else invloved

You guys are talking like you know what was in the Mulvey Arbitration Memorandum. I gave my opinions on this in the other thread. Unless someone can point me to the actual text of the memorandum, the only info online is these excerpts. And the No-strike clause is:

"No strike clause -- the players agree not to invoke any strike process in future where it is clear that the terms of this arbitration memorandum have been adhered to by the Board."

Using the No-strike clause to back up any argument against the players just isn't convincing unless you can show that the CCB have kept their side of the deal.

Hitman Actual

baztard wrote: »

No.
The players say "We do NOT want to choose our own manager"
Players Statement

but I do think they want a to hold a veto on a choosen manager. Its only a subtle difference.

No, I don't believe the players even want a power of veto. There's nothing in the arbitration deal to give them that, and withdrawing their services doesn't give them that.

Waylander

Hitman Actual wrote: »

You guys are talking like you know what was in the Mulvey Arbitration Memorandum. I gave my opinions on this in the other thread. Unless someone can point me to the actual text of the memorandum, the only info online is these excerpts. And the No-strike clause is:

"No strike clause -- the players agree not to invoke any strike process in future where it is clear that the terms of this arbitration memorandum have been adhered to by the Board."

Using the No-strike clause to back up any argument against the players just isn't convincing unless you can show that the CCB have kept their side of the deal.

If the no strike clause was not being broken, then the players would have been calling this a strike form the start and would not have been looking for technical roundabouts!

Hitman Actual

Waylander wrote: »

If the no strike clause was not being broken, then the players would have been calling this a strike form the start and would not have been looking for technical roundabouts!

Perhaps, but that still doesn't affect the point that people are trying to back up their arguments using a document of which they don't know the full text.

Waylander

Hitman Actual wrote: »

Perhaps, but that still doesn't affect the point that people are trying to back up their arguments using a document of which they don't know the full text.

Not sure what I can say to that Lenny. You concede I have a point, and then brush over it. As I dont have access to the document I can only use the information available to me to make a decision on my point of view. I have done that and explained my rationale, and I am happy with my rationale.

Orizio

The problem clearly is that both sides are saying the other broke the agreement first. Until we see the agreement in full, there is no way to say.

Hitman Actual

Waylander wrote: »

Not sure what I can say to that Lenny. You concede I have a point, and then brush over it. As I dont have access to the document I can only use the information available to me to make a decision on my point of view. I have done that and explained my rationale, and I am happy with my rationale.

Hmmm. I guess I did brush over it, but what you said doesn't prove that the CCB adhered to the deal; without knowing the text, we don't know, which is my point. Admittedly, your response has me thinking and is the best I've heard on the subject.

Min

The problem for the striking Cork players is Kilkenny, it goes back to that semi final. When Kilkenny won we had Cork players on the pitch bawling their eyes out. A few weeks back when the strikers had their press conference a reference was made about that match and Gerald McCarthy's tactics.

I don't think the striking Cork players accepted the reality of that day, it was everyone elses fault they lost bar their own, I believe they thought they were better than Kilkenny and couldn't believe it when they lost.
If Cork had beaten Kilkenny, they would have won the All-Ireland and they wouldn't have a problem with Gerald McCarthy.

Gerald McCarthy at the moment has players who are delighted to wear the red jersey of Cork, they may not be the best in the county but they are a hell of a lot better in attitude than the striking players.
The striking players are too big headed and have let their county down.

spillcoe

Min wrote: »

The problem for the striking Cork players is Kilkenny, it goes back to that semi final. When Kilkenny won we had Cork players on the pitch bawling their eyes out. A few weeks back when the strikers had their press conference a reference was made about that match and Gerald McCarthy's tactics.

I don't think the striking Cork players accepted the reality of that day, it was everyone elses fault they lost bar their own, I believe they thought they were better than Kilkenny and couldn't believe it when they lost.
If Cork had beaten Kilkenny, they would have won the All-Ireland and they wouldn't have a problem with Gerald McCarthy.

Gerald McCarthy at the moment has players who are delighted to wear the red jersey of Cork, they may not be the best in the county but they are a hell of a lot better in attitude than the striking players.
The striking players are too big headed and have let their county down.

Kilkenny are not the problem here for Cork. If you bother to read their statement in full you would see that.

"We have no fear of the laws of the world; when there is a better player he must take our place; when there is a better team against us we will be defeated; when there is a better idea or ideal for Cork Hurling, we will be irrelevant"

The Cork players do not believe themselves to be better than this Kilkenny team. They do however believe that if they have proper preparation and superior tactics together with the never say die attitude that has seen them through tough matches then on any given day they have a chance of beating Kilkenny. They have beaten them before and there is no reason to believe they can't do so again under the right conditions.

These conditions did not exist under Gerald so he should not have been given a second spell in charge. End of story.

Alfie Boon

Spillco or who ever you are...
A few home truths.
A.That 08 cork team,as a unit are finished.
B.McCarthy is the democratically elected manager.
C.Cork wont win anything this year,but what they have won, is respect and goodwill from the hurling community.
D.The hasbeens would'nt beat the current kilkenny team if they played week in week out for the whole summer.

Now why dont you crawl back under your rock and stop wasting your time on here spouting bull****.You are fooling nobody but yourself with your claptrap.They are gone,get behind the new lads and stop whinging.

END OF STORY.

spillcoe

Alfie Boon wrote: »

Spillco or who ever you are...
A few home truths.
A.That 08 cork team,as a unit are finished.
B.McCarthy is the democratically elected manager.
C.Cork wont win anything this year,but what they have won, is respect and goodwill from the hurling community.
D.The hasbeens would'nt beat the current kilkenny team if they played week in week out for the whole summer.

Now why dont you crawl back under your rock and stop wasting your time on here spouting bull****.You are fooling nobody but yourself with your claptrap.They are gone,get behind the new lads and stop whinging.

END OF STORY.

Gerald may be the 'democratically elected manager' under the rules of the Cork County Board but it's about time people like you recognised that there is nothing democratic in the way Frank Murphy and his lackeys operate.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/corks-banana-republic-taking-power-from-the-people-1640643.html

Can you really say that you agree with a situation where a group of players who dedicate their lives to hurling should be forced to play under a man they have no belief in?

The 'hasbeens' as you call them have an average age roughly the same as the Kilkenny team. Ben O'Conor, one of the oldest players won an All-Star last year.

I think you should be the one crawling back under your rock because clearly you have no idea what you are talking about and I certainly will not be accepting that the '08 players are gone and neither will an awful lot of other people around the county.

premierstone

spillcoe wrote: »

Can you really say that you agree with a situation where a group of players who dedicate their lives to hurling should be forced to play under a man they have no belief in?

But its the same as ever Spilcoe you can then argue is it fair that a man who has dedicated his life both as a player and coach to the county and is one of the most decorated members of the association ever be forced to resign because the players have a problem with Frank Murphy.

On the point that the average ages of the KK and Cork team are similar the fact is when Cork took on and beat KK they were palying a style of game that was undoubtetly placing a large emphasis on fitness and physical training and this combined with the fact that Cork had a far tougher route each year to Croker (especially all the games against Waterford) and it is easier to see why Cork players are in decline whereas KK are in their prime.

spillcoe

premierstone wrote: »

But its the same as ever Spilcoe you can then argue is it fair that a man who has dedicated his life both as a player and coach to the county and is one of the most decorated members of the association ever be forced to resign because the players have a problem with Frank Murphy.

On the point that the average ages of the KK and Cork team are similar the fact is when Cork took on and beat KK they were palying a style of game that was undoubtedly placing a large emphasis on fitness and physical training and this combined with the fact that Cork had a far tougher route each year to Croker (especially all the games against Waterford) and it is easier to see why Cork players are in decline whereas KK are in their prime.

The situation as I see it is not that the players want Gerald to resign because they have a problem with Frank Murphy. The players do not want to continue playing under Gerald as they do not think they would have any chance of success under him. What they have a problem with is being forced to accept the one man that they said they did not want.

As for Gerald himself, he would not be in the position he is now if he had kept his promise to the Cork players when he said that he would only remain as manager as long as the players wanted him. I have a lot of respect for the man and what he has achieved both as a player and a manager but no one can deny that he has gone back on a promise made to the players. This is something that all the people supporting Gerald and the county board completely ignore. The right thing for Gerald to do would have been to accept that he had been given a fair shot at the job and after two years of failure it was time to move on and give someone else a shot at it.