I think it is an Irish city. The other person thinks it is a Northern Irish city because they are two different countries apparently. I'm probably biased because of my background and he's probably biased because of his background.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Why have so many posts been removed?
I hope you pointed out that Northern Ireland isn't a country. That one always goes down well.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
Weather forecast for match time in Glasgow is decent. Not much of a wind and rain forecast for morning and afternoon will have passed. 8 degrees, which is about 8 more than it was in 1987.
I thought we'd stuff them 2-0 with McCarthy but now I've upgraded my prediction to 3-0. Maybe 3-1.
Except that's been the case for nearly a century, so its newsworthiness has faded somewhat!Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
ha very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I'm not worried one bit with Gibson or Hendrick taking Macca's place
What time is it at?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Finally some positivity!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
Well, biased or not. Seems like an Orse. Unionism is a bizarre thing altogether, and it seems the relative ability to accept Irishness see,s to do with social class and/or education.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
That's another days work and discussion anyway.
We can't talk about a certain incident. And quite rightly. This is not YBIG.Quote:
Why have so many posts been removed?
Hmmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
I think you'll find it hasn't been a "country" for about 4-5 billion years.
But I see you tried to talk about it, more times than Molly Bloom said yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Oh yeah? It's all a ruse. I'm such a gossip monger.
It's being widely reported, so can we talk about it?
This isn't YBIG, and I appreciate the position Tets is in, but, you know, it is a talking point.
Would be surprised if it was down to Tets?
It was down to me. The thread is locked, the FAI have issued a statement, and that;s all there is to it. I've no interest in pages of "my mate knows a driver, who was passing the hotel when he saw...." or posts along those lines
When there's any new information I'll reopen the thread, but for now I'm letting it die.
I hope we beat these Scots tomorrow night - i never been so pi**ed off with the crap on sky sports all week - McQueen, and then the going on with some of our players born else where - the english want to look at they cricket and rugby team!
This is war tomorrow night - i would love to be there!
I think we can do serious damage to Scotland on the wings with McGeady and McClean running at them. Hutton is out, as is Bardsley. Is Bardsley usually a starter? He'd surely be one of their stronger full-backs.
He was assessed by the FAI doctor. It was the doctor who sent him home after two scans this week. It wasn't a decision made by James or his club. Those are the more pertinent facts. If we think it is a problem that wouldn't keep him out of an Everton game, why is it that Everton have that power to play him, whereas the FAI are hesitant and might feel somewhat restricted? What would be restricting them?Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I agree with you - it makes sense - but why do you think that is and what do you think might have happened had O'Neill decided to play McCarthy (possibly even causing an exacerbation of the problem)? What repercussions might it have had for Ireland? It does seem that certain problems/fatigue through which a player might be able to play for his club are/is more likely to keep him out of an international game. The fitness threshold, if you could call it that, appears to be higher for international football. Do associations fear possible legal repercussions, do you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
There is a legal relationship between player and his club, that is not there between player and his association. Are associations reluctant to potentially threaten or interfere with the player's fulfillment of his contractual club duties for fear of provoking legal action (i.e. clubs suing for damages due to loss incurred by virtue of a player getting injured whilst on international duty)? Murmurs of clubs potentially suing associations often do the rounds in the media when a big player from a big club picks up a serious knock whilst on international duty. Does that play on the minds of those working on behalf of associations when dealing with players who aren't 100 per cent fit? Are they reluctant to push clubs too far to a point where we might actually arrive at a scenario where clubs will hold such sway that they'll simply refuse to comply with any request by associations or any statutory duty on the part of FIFA/UEFA to release players for international fixtures at all?
I'm just speculating or theorising really as to why the balance of power is in favour of clubs, but is the above a reasonable theory or can you offer a more persuasive explanation? Is possible legal action a realistic concern for associations or even a viable option for clubs in the present climate?
Parklife.
If you don't know now, look at the numerous examples all round Europe after every international break...
Largely based on 'co-operation', but massively weighted in favour of the clubs.
No, no. For once, you are not demonstrating bias; you are wholeheartedly correct! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks
Why though? Why do associations feel so restricted by a need to co-operate with club's wishes? What do you suspect would happen if they pushed it? Is the fear that clubs en masse would eventually refuse to release players down the line to associations generally deemed untrustworthy and inconsiderate?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
The power has always been with the clubs, you'd be deluded if you ever thought it was different. When a player gets injured with his club we don't bat an eye, the player becomes unavailable, it's an accepted event. We don't say, don't play him in a game before our game just in case he picks up an injury'. The balance has always been with the club.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
There are some mandatory regulations to observe about release and injuries but for the most part, unless it is a Finals tournament or some really crucial game, an intl manager would be low standard if he fcked up a player's club career due to reckless risk taking for a qual game. A pig headed manager like Hodgson was rightly taken to task by club managers over his decisions re injury susceptible players.
The desired situation is not that intl duty takes precedence over the club, or vice versa but that there's respect and cooperation from both sides of that equation in regard to the player's duties to both.
It's an interesting one. I mentioned before that I think it's up to a manager to manage a situation like this. I remember reading a quote from O'Neill around the Germany game where he said he would speak to Martinez before anyone else as he had experience of being a club manager and could see the possible conflicts. My impression was that O'Neill wasn't going to rock the boat so early in his international management career, he could use the 'Platini' leverage later on when he needs it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
If an international manager wants to force their hand, all the rules are in their favour. There is even CPP{club protection program} that will cover players wages should they incur injury on international duty. It probably boils to player/manager/manager relations and probably more nuanced than we probably know. The difference in McCarthy v Whelan cases during the week were interesting. Whelan showed a lot of determination during the week despite a broken leg but it probably has more to do with his relationship with Hughes/Stoke than it does with the severity of injury.