Against the head

jm08

thomond2006 wrote: »

Talking up clients is one of the main responsibilities of an agent.

Talking them up to their employers/future employers is their main responsibility! You think Axel/Garret Fitz would be bothered about a MOTM award?

thomond2006

jm08 wrote: »

Talking them up to their employers/future employers! You think Axel/Garret Fitz would be bothered about a MOTM award?

The point is though, no matter the context/setting, they will never talk them down. Therefore can they be expected to be taken seriously when asked about their client, on TV for example? Nope.

Anyway I'm out. I'm not going to change my mind on this anytime soon.

jm08

Tox56 wrote: »

Are you serious here? That sentence would make a lot more sense if it was sarcastic. Are you actually struggling to believe an agent would talk up one of their clients?

They talk everyone up.

My view is that Frankie is no worse than commentators who are not agents. I see a small question mark over all of them - Frankie Sheahan talking up his clients is no worse to me than Shane Horgan talking up his old team mates (in both Ireland and Leinster).

total former

Reminds me of a headline on the Indo website during the 2011 World Cup; "Aussies say Trimble should play" or something similar, basically the Australians couldn't get their head around why Trimble was being left out for Earls.

Except the "Aussies" were actually only one Aussie, Ryan Constable. Being the Indo, they failed to mention that this Aussie also happened to be Trimble's agent.

It was pathetic journalism and tbh, I don't think having Sheahan on RTE or Sky is much different.

jm08

thomond2006 wrote: »

The point is though, no matter the context/setting, they will never talk them down. Therefore can they be expected to be taken seriously when asked about their client, on TV for example? Nope.

Anyway I'm out. I'm not going to change my mind on this anytime soon.

Hook is the only one who talks anyone down. I cannot think of anyone else criticising any player. They all talk everyone up or say nothing at all.

jm08

total former wrote: »

Reminds me of a headline on the Indo website during the 2011 World Cup; "Aussies say Trimble should play" or something similar, basically the Australians couldn't get their head around why Trimble was being left out for Earls.

Except the "Aussies" were actually only one Aussie, Ryan Constable. Being the Indo, they failed to mention that this Aussie also happened to be Trimble's agent.

It was pathetic journalism and tbh, I don't think having Sheahan on RTE or Sky is much different.

Actually, it wasn't just Ryan Constable - it was the Aussie press.

Paul Cully (Sydney Morning Herald)

Player to watch: Stephen Ferris. If Ireland are to stand any chance the rampaging Ulsterman must have the game of his life in the back row.
The tactic: As identified by legendary Lions coach Ian McGeechan, Ireland like to hold up the ball-carrier to turn the tackle into a maul, once a second attacker arrives. If it then collapses, players off their feet do not have to roll away. Australia need to get their carriers to ground quickly.
The danger: Brian O'Driscoll arriving from deeper and nudging grubber kicks into space for his robust wings, Andrew Trimble and Tommy Bowe, to chase - forcing Quade Cooper to clean up.
The prediction: Australia by 13 plus

total former

jm08 wrote: »

Actually, it wasn't just Ryan Constable - it was the Aussie press.

Paul Cully (Sydney Morning Herald)

I'm sorry; did the Indo article refer to Paul Cully? No? So your point is nonsense? OK.

Podge_irl

jm08 wrote: »

Tony Ward nearly always gives the outhalf of the winning side man of the match - thats a conflict of interest because maybe a forward deserved it more

That's not even remotely close to the definition of "conflict of interest".

Sheahan has two professional jobs whose tasks are fundamentally at odds with each other. Sheahan (or anyone in his position) is worse than Horgan because a) it's less clear - everyone knows Horgan is an ex-Leinster player and it says it on screen when he's talking and b) he's paid to do it!! That makes an enormous difference.

Anyway, you are right that the problem is more one of there being a limited pool of pundits that RTE seem willing to pick from.

jm08

Podge_irl wrote: »

That's not even remotely close to the definition of "conflict of interest".

Sheahan has two professional jobs whose tasks are fundamentally at odds with each other. Sheahan (or anyone in his position) is worse than Horgan because a) it's less clear - everyone knows Horgan is an ex-Leinster player and it says it on screen when he's talking and b) he's paid to do it!! That makes an enormous difference.

Anyway, you are right that the problem is more one of there being a limited pool of pundits that RTE seem willing to pick from.

I'd contend that emotion(al attachment) is a more powerful motivator than financial gain.

Frankie Sheehan has a very low profile list. If being a pundit on tv was so beneficial to player's careers, Peter O'Mahony would still be with him.

TommyOM

jm08 wrote: »

Tomas O'Leary isn't a client of Frankies' now. If he was then and has since left, it would seem TOL or (whoever) didn't rate his efforts much.

Frankie's client list:
Stephen Archer
Cian Bohane
Danny Qualter
Ian Nagle
Ivan Dineen
Johnny Holland
James Cronin
Jason Harris-Wright
Ryan Murphy
Rory Scannell

All seem to be young lads just coming through. I wouldn't think he is making a lot of money out of them.

A lot of players have left Frankie.

For what its worth I would do the exact same in his position. When you consider the financial mess he currently finds himself in then it is perfectly understandable that he would do anything to keep players on his books.

rrpc

jm08 wrote: »

I'd contend that emotion(al attachment) is a more powerful motivator than financial gain.

Frankie Sheehan has a very low profile list. If being a pundit on tv was so beneficial to player's careers, Peter O'Mahony would still be with him.

So you're excuse for him is that he's not very good at it?

niallon

In 2012, Leinster VS Glasgow, when the Glasgow fullback was outpaced for Leinster's first try Frankie's exact words were "oh just too full of haggis".

That's borderline racism and told me everything I needed to know about his media "abilities". Needs to go, for good.

jm08

TommyOM wrote: »

A lot of players have left Frankie.

For what its worth I would do the exact same in his position. When you consider the financial mess he currently finds himself in then it is perfectly understandable that he would do anything to keep players on his books.

I'd say he is far more interested in other stuff now (like the Pendulum Summit which is a big event) and looks to be winding down from that side of the business. He isn't going to make a fortune on agent's fees from Ivan Dineen for example.

He is also on the Board of Failte Ireland.

jm08

rrpc wrote: »

So you're excuse for him is that he's not very good at it?

I'd reckon any pundit talking anyone up or giving them MOTM awards is irrelevant to the careers of any player and I reckon Frankie is smart enough to know that.

Its like this - Joe Schmidt couldn't give two tosses what the pundits say about him or Ireland's style of play - he is going to do it his way.

phog

Buer wrote: »

A player's agent will absolutely try to use MOTM awards as a metric for their performances. They'd be an idiot not to.

A MOTM award would not only boost a player's profile in terms of contract negotiations but also with regards to how marketable and recognisable they are to the public, therefore increasing their value for sponsors, public appearances etc.

God bless your innocence.

thomond2006

phog wrote: »

God bless your innocence.

What exactly is wrong with the point Buer makes? I don't know anything about how agents 'sell' their clients to clubs but I'm sure any kind of individual awards form part of their profile. Why should they be allowed to be in a position where they can influence that? I've said it before but I don't really blame the agents since if they're given a platform... The broadcasters are at fault.

awec

phog wrote: »

God bless your innocence.

Please don't be patronising to other posters.

RuggieBear

jm08 wrote: »

....


Form - Zebo's form was brilliant last year - 11 trys to Gilroy's 6. MOTM in at least one HC game (scoring 3 and with his restart reclaims provided another 2/3).



Logic has nothing to do with it!

jm08 wrote: »

You'll find that both O'Mahony (starter for 5 Heineken cup games with 2 MOTM awards) & Murray had played away in France on a winning team before they were selected for Ireland, also with numerous MOTM awards. Murray was the SH that won the Magners Final in 2010.

jm08 wrote: »

Stringer is having a great run of games in the UK - motm against sarries and described as outstanding by the Guardian in the match report.

Are you keeping an eye on his matches Cleggy?

jm08 wrote: »

I think he had a couple of really outstanding performances in the B&I Cup which lead to a few offers from English clubs. Also, think he got MOTM award against Ulster up against Muller in a Munster win in Ravenhill.
...

MOTM: Useful nobody-can-really-remember-the-performance metric to have though for an agent...or for people to use to argue on internet forums!

hinault

Wang King wrote: »

Depends on who you are comparing him to?

You reckon?

Joanne Cantwell was far better at getting the panel the talk.

O'Brien continually interrupts his guests to air his own vacuous views and platitudes.

jm08

thomond2006 wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with the point Buer makes? I don't know anything about how agents 'sell' their clients to clubs but I'm sure any kind of individual awards form part of their profile. Why should they be allowed to be in a position where they can influence that? I've said it before but I don't really blame the agents since if they're given a platform... The broadcasters are at fault.

Its one person's opinion. I seem to remember Sean O'Brien getting a MOTM award playing No. 8 against Italy when to me the outstanding player on the pitch was Parisse.

But, the MOTM award usually goes to the home team when they win.

The way I look at it is that sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree.

sydthebeat

jm08 wrote: »

Its one person's opinion. I seem to remember Sean O'Brien getting a MOTM award playing No. 8 against Italy when to me the outstanding player on the pitch was Parisse.

But, the MOTM award usually goes to the home team when they win.

The way I look at it is that sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree.

that has absolutley NOTHING to do with what Buer posted ??????

jm08

RuggieBear wrote: »

MOTM: Useful nobody-can-really-remember-the-performance metric to have though for an agent...or for people to use to argue on internet forums!

MOTM performances seem to be the performance metric that is understood on this forum. I'd say I agree with some, and I would disagree with others.

RuggieBear

yes/no to this question then: Is it a conflict of interest for Agent Frankie Sheehan to be giving MOTM awards to his usually undeserving clients....?

YES or NO only, please?

jm08

sydthebeat wrote: »

that has absolutley NOTHING to do with what Buer posted ??????

Buer made the point that it would boost a player's profile for his contract. Mick Dawson or Garret Fitzgerald wouldn't rate a high profile - all they are interested in is getting a player who can do a job for their Province. They are not going to pay them extra for picking up MOTM awards.

Joe Schmidt isn't going to pick any player just because he got a few man of the match awards - he is going to pick him because he is a good player and he doesn't need a pundit to tell him that.

jm08

RuggieBear wrote: »

yes/no to this question then: Is it a conflict of interest for Agent Frankie Sheehan to be giving MOTM awards to his usually undeserving clients....?

YES or NO only, please?

If they are deserving in his honest opinion no.

I don't see how MOTM awards serve anyone except the sponsor to get their face/product on tv.

OldRio

Sometimes I lead a horse to water but no matter what I do, it just won't drink.

sydthebeat

jm08 wrote: »

Buer made the point that it would boost a player's profile for his contract. t.

regardless of whether it could or not, why do you think youre in a position to speak for dawson, fitezgerald or schmidt?

its not at all unreasonable to suggest citing MOTM awards as part of an argument for a players contract is valid.....

rrpc

jm08 wrote: »

Buer made the point that it would boost a player's profile for his contract. Mick Dawson or Garret Fitzgerald wouldn't rate a high profile - all they are interested in is getting a player who can do a job for their Province. They are not going to pay them extra for picking up MOTM awards.

Joe Schmidt isn't going to pick any player just because he got a few man of the match awards - he is going to pick him because he is a good player and he doesn't need a pundit to tell him that.

Ah yes, but what about if the agent goes to Northampton or Castres etc. touting his player with the hatful of MOTM awards and gets an offer that he can then bring back to said player's province and use as part of his negotiations?

jm08

sydthebeat wrote: »

regardless of whether it could or not, why do you think youre in a position to speak for dawson, fitezgerald or schmidt?

its not at all unreasonable to suggest citing MOTM awards as part of an argument for a players contract is valid.....

I'm speaking from a position of respect for Dawson, Fitzgerald and Schmidt who I guess realise that paper never refused ink.

Most prospective employers would check out what is put in the cv (i.e., watch the game where they got this MOTM award) and make their own mind up then.

rrpc

jm08 wrote: »

Most prospective employers would check out what is put in the cv (i.e., watch the game where they got this MOTM award) and make their own mind up then.

I would strongly doubt that. They may watch highlight reels and presumably being Rugby people would already have some knowledge of the player but I hardly see them sitting down to watch match after match to see if the MOTM awards were deserved or not.

It would be like a prospective employer popping into your workplace and quizzing your colleagues on your performance.

jm08

rrpc wrote: »

Ah yes, but what about if the agent goes to Northampton or Castres etc. touting his player with the hatful of MOTM awards and gets an offer that he can then bring back to said player's province and use as part of his negotiations?

They deserve the player if they didn't check out their cv (i.e., watch them play).

Timmy Ryan got picked up by Toulon for his (non MOTM) performance against the ABs. I don't think he ever got a MOTM award from Frankie.

Ian Nagle got onto Northampton radar with his performance in a B&I cup game. I don't think Frankie was looking for a new club for him then.

Is this real life?

thomond2006

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this real life?

Is this just fantasy?

jm08

rrpc wrote: »

I would strongly doubt that. They may watch highlight reels and presumably being Rugby people would already have some knowledge of the player but I hardly see them sitting down to watch match after match to see if the MOTM awards were deserved or not.

It would be like a prospective employer popping into your workplace and quizzing your colleagues on your performance.

I didn't mean it literally, though I think if they were thinking of hiring them they would have done some fairly serious analysis on them.

They would also probably go and watch them at work though (or get someone to scout them).

Neil3030

Has Frankie ever announced a MOTM on RTE? Or has it just been on Sky?

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this real life?

Yea, Timmy Ryan ended up with Toulon (2 year contract) who seemed to do a swap with Newcastle for Carl Hayman - all from playing well against the ABs

Frankie is some operator!

@jm08

@jm08 you should take a read of this page, and perhaps a quick scan of these two pages (1,2).

Then maybe take a deep breath and realise how we've gotten through so many posts in this thread today in defence of Sheahan's clear conflict of interest in being a commentator/analyst and agent to those he's supposed to be commentating on / analysing for the media.

The "downstream" issues (i.e saying that someone who hires a player based solely on their MoTM awards is to blame) are independent issues (and though also failings) so do not trump nor affect the existence of a clear conflict of interest in the discussed case. A logical example would be that a drunk driver who knocked someone down while they were "somewhere they shouldn't be" isn't absolved of the offence of drink driving.

Please try to use logic and reasoning and not fallacies if you wish to 'debate' / 'defend' Sheahan's situation any further. Otherwise it's wholly pointless and drain circling.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

@jm08 you should take a read of this page, and perhaps a quick scan of these two pages (1,2).

Then maybe take a deep breath and realise how we've gotten through so many posts in this thread today in defence of Sheahan's clear conflict of interest in being a commentator/analyst and agent to those he's supposed to be commentating on / analysing for the media.

The "downstream" issues (i.e saying that someone who hires a player based solely on their MoTM awards is to blame) are independent issues (and though also failings) so do not trump nor affect the existence of a clear conflict of interest in the discussed case. A logical example would be that a drunk driver who knocked someone down while they were "somewhere they shouldn't be" isn't absolved of the offence of drink driving.

Please try to use logic and reasoning and not fallacies if you wish to 'debate' / 'defend' Sheahan's situation any further. Otherwise it's wholly pointless and drain circling.

... the irony of your post ...

Its just not black and white the way you want it to be.

To be clear and concise. I consider MOTM awards largely irrelevant because they are based on one person's opinion who maybe biased anyway in the positions they know most about and might have more appreciation for the contribution of one particular position - (like Tony Ward invariably giving the award to the outhalf, or Donal Lenihan giving it to a 2nd / backrow).

I don't see how its a conflict of interest for Frankie Sheehan bearing in mind that he rarely commentates on games that one of his clients is playing in and no one can remember a game where he gave MOTM to one of his clients (i.e., so they must have been deserving awards). I see where some people didn't approve of him giving a MOTM award to Tomas O'Leary as they thought he was a client of his (Niall Woods is his agent).

As for Ryan Constable - half the players on the pitch are generally clients of his, so that could get him even into more trouble if he isn't honest with his opinion. You'd imagine if it was that important, he wouldn't do it in case he offended one of his clients because he can't pick them all for MOTM awards.

jm08. Focus on this one issue. Single topic. Real simple. See if you can just answer this, no opinions or anything.

I propose that Frankie Sheahan's positions as both a commentator/analyst AND player agent contrive to create a conflict of interest .

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.

First point to consider here - A COI needs only to lend itself to the possibility of corruption occurring.

Second point to consider here - We also have an interesting example of a situation when David Wallace, then a client of FS, was awarded a MoTM award in a game by FS (which was surprising to all including Wallace). This could cynically be viewed as an example of FS falling foul of his COI.

What's not black and white about any of this? Which of these aren't facts and instead are opinions?

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

jm08. Focus on this one issue. Single topic. Real simple. See if you can just answer this, no opinions or anything.

I propose that Frankie Sheahan's positions as both a commentator/analyst AND player agent contrive to create a conflict of interest .



First point to consider here - A COI needs only to lend itself to the possibility of corruption occurring.

Second point to consider here - We also have an interesting example of a situation when David Wallace, then a client of FS, was awarded a MoTM award in a game by FS. This could cynically be viewed as an example of FS falling foul of his COI.

What's not black and white about any of this? Which of these aren't facts and instead are opinions?

Corruption :eek: Get a grip

To humour you - what was the gain for David Wallace or Frankie Sheehan by David Wallace getting a MOTM award?

At this stage, some might say that it did both Frankie & Wally a disservice as he was undeserving (for the record, I don't remember it).


Edit: (Might have been Mick O'Driscoll, not Wally - who asked if it was Frankie who had made the award and just laughed - which is how most players probably view it - a bit of a laugh).

edite: its not black and white because its based on someone's opinion - not a mathematical formula.

George Hook

jm08 wrote: »

To humour you - what was the gain for David Wallace or Frankie Sheehan by David Wallace getting a MOTM award?

No.

Answer his question first.

jm08

George Hook wrote: »

No.

Answer his question first.

For it to be a conflict of interest/corruption there needs to be a gain for someone of the parties involved. I can't see a gain for anyone in this so in my book its not a conflict of interest and claims of corruption are way over the top.

Furthermore, I don't think Emmet is basing it on something that actually occurred (as in David Wallace got an undeserved MOTM award from Frankie).

Flipper22

jm08 wrote: »

Corruption :eek: Get a grip

To humour you - what was the gain for David Wallace or Frankie Sheehan by David Wallace getting a MOTM award?

At this stage, some might say that it did both Frankie & Wally a disservice as he was undeserving (for the record, I don't remember it).


Edit: (Might have been Mick O'Driscoll, not Wally - who asked if it was Frankie who had made the award and just laughed - which is how most players probably view it - a bit of a laugh).

edite: its not black and white because its based on someone's opinion - not a mathematical formula.

My god. It's not an opinion, it's a clear conflict of interest under any definition of the term. What IS an opinion is that FS allows this conflict of interest to colour his commentary. However it's an opinion with plenty of evidence to back it up; just last week he was desperately trying to blame anyone but Archer when the Munster scrum was under pressure early in the game.
It's not just about MOTM; in the case of the vast majority of viewers, even those who may be quite knowledgable, their view of a players performance is greatly affected by what is said (and not said) by commentators.

Neil3030

Can I play devil's advocate?

Don't all television pundits have a conflict of interest? Assuming they want to strengthen their profile and ultimately earning potential as pundits, might this cloud their judgement on certain issues, and /or cause them to focus on certain soundbites that may gain them attention at the expense of honest analysis?

.ak

Neil3030 wrote: »

Can I play devil's advocate?

Don't all television pundits have a conflict of interest? Assuming they want to strengthen their profile and ultimately earning potential as pundits, might this cloud their judgement on certain issues, and /or cause them to focus on certain soundbites that may gain them attention at the expense of honest analysis?

Not all of them benefit from player contracts though...

TommyOM

jm08 wrote: »

. I see where some people didn't approve of him giving a MOTM award to Tomas O'Leary as they thought he was a client of his (Niall Woods is his agent).

Niall Woods is his current agent. I believe that it was Tomas O'Leary but I am not entirely sure.

thomond2006

jm08 wrote: »

For it to be a conflict of interest/corruption there needs to be a gain for someone of the parties involved. I can't see a gain for anyone in this so in my book its not a conflict of interest and claims of corruption are way over the top.

Furthermore, I don't think Emmet is basing it on something that actually occurred (as in David Wallace got an undeserved MOTM award from Frankie).

Munster vs London Irish, January 2011. I don't remember if it was FS who gave MOTM but Wallace is shown to be clearly amused (I think he said "What?" in a surprised tone when the cameraman told him he was MOTM).

Hagz

It should be noted that David Wallace wasn't a client of Frankie Sheehan. He had him listed as one of his clients on his website but Wallace was never actually his client. Wallace was a client of a sports management company called Essentially.

TommyOM

Yep Tomas O'Leary was definitely on his books at one stage

"A number of Sheahan’s former team mates from his Munster and Ireland playing days have signed up with Front Row, including current Irish internationals Tomás O’Leary, David Wallace and Mick O’Driscoll. Sheahan will handle their commercial interests within Ireland."

Source is Sunday Business Post via http://www.munsterfans.com/threads/20152-Frankie/page2

jm08

.ak wrote: »

Not all of them benefit from player contracts though...

Are you not getting yourself in a twist over nothing. Frankie is probably not even getting a fee for most of his clients they are so far down the food chain.

Should Brian O'Driscoll who has an interest in Ikon (and who is described as a mentor to their clients) not be allowed make any comments on any players because it is a clear conflict of interest as well.

Personally, I think the world would be a lot poorer if you went down this route. As I've said before, Ireland is too small to worry over conflict of interests about MOTM awards given out by TV pundits.