On the topic of off the ball, i was listening to it last week when the rovers match was on and the presenter called Thompson Ndo
Printable View
On the topic of off the ball, i was listening to it last week when the rovers match was on and the presenter called Thompson Ndo
I listen to their pieces with John Giles, sometimes with some of the foreign correspondants (who are more than just colonial half wits) and even last week they completely embarassed themselves over Paris St. Germain (saying they had no fans and no hope), only for the French journo to completely rip them a new one! It was almost a pleasure to hear, though they will continue so long as the meeja dictates this is all we're fit for. Joe Duffy and OTB. Good god!
What did people make of the coverage of this on MNS last night? It's here from 15 minutes if you missed it: http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/mns/
I thought Sadlier (holy crap, someone on MNS who knew what they were talking about!) wiped the floor with McGuinness to be honest.
The most striking thing was that the PFAI were unable to deny that the strike would have been illegal. An extraordinary situation for a representative body to place itself in. Also, he seemed to think it was a big deal that the players played without an appearance fee- like they ever deserved one! That they asked for €20k to play the game was outrageous.
Pats may not have handled this well, but I can see why they wouldn't want to entertain such crazy demands.
I dunno, I thought McGuinnes won the argument, as clearly, if you have to shout and point the finger, you're winning (sarc). JesusH, he came across very poor, Sadlier absolutely made him look like a right idiot
Mc Guinness was crap and Sadlier's well thought out points mopped the floor with him. To be fair, Mc Guinness has to represent his members and their actions no matter how flawed they may be. lets hope that away from the public glare he realises that such an occurance must not happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
I'm not sure what else Pat's were supposed to do really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Players - "Can we have lots of money?"
Pat's - "No; anyway, we're very busy trying at the moment to get ye all to Kazakhstan."
Players - "Right so; we'll just strike and not warn ye about it"
Maybe not down to SPA but should there not be an agreed procedure to deal with disputes of this nature ? Always going to be issues parties cannot agree should be some avenue to address them. If nothing else it avoids frutration that leads to people making poor decisionsQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Maybe, but sure who could have seen this coming? You can't make plans for every possible eventuality. What else should we plan for?
(Cue Mr A for the punchline...)
Actually most industries sectors that do not avail o fthe State dispute resolution machinery have in place an agreed Tribunal/arbitration system, agreed panel of arbitrator(s) and any issues unresolved locally (directly between parties) automatically referred to same. If parties agree in advance to binding arbitration then possibility of Industrial action does not arise. Given the increasing (although still small) number of occurances perhaps FAI should consider some similar model for LOIQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
But what if they ignore that? It's already been suggested that the players' strike would have been illegal had it gone ahead. It's already been noted that the Pat's officials - volunteers, like at most clubs, I assume - were engaged in getting the team to Kazakhstan at short notice. The players seem to have ignored all the rules; you can't legislate for that.
It is already legislated for - a court injunction can (and previously has been) sought to prevent illegal (as outlined in IR Act) industrial action. Most employers are slow to go down the legal route due to cost and the residue of ill feeling that results but if it were made clear to parties that non adherence to procedures would result in legal route I would see it as a serious deterrent. I always suspected the SPA players were bluffing to a certain extent and would not have gone ahead with strike action - strike threats are very regular occurance across industry but (fortunately) rarely result in strike action.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
That's not the point though. Had the players gone through with their illegal strike, the club would have folded. That's not a typical case.
I agree the club could probably have called the players' bluff - I wouldn't have liked to do it, mind - but this was a slightly unusual case.
Stephen McGuinness cames across as illogical and unreasonable.
To dismiss the issues of demand for appearance money and the strike statement on the basis that neither actually came to pass is bizarre.
The damage done by threatening this strike (and further compounded by declaring a strike) was significant.
The only mild positive to come out of this is that McGuinness and the PFAI are damaged goods.
If action was declared illegal (by court) PFAI could have been liable for all losses incurred. I would suggest that might have changed/tempered the PFAI view on Industrial action. Anyway, as I said legal route is not a good option (any more than brinkmanship we saw last week) and an agreed dispute resolution mechanism should be sought.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Thank god for the real leader of the pfai as soon as he got involved it was sorted
But Karpaty would have chased Pat's, and Pat's would have had to chase the PFAI. That would have ended with both bankrupt - wouldn't have saved Pat's at all.
I still think there is a dispute resolution mechanism, but the players just ignored it, and you can't legislate for that.
They'd have chased Pats receivers as if the game didn't go ahead on Thursday, we were in receivership on Friday. Absolutely no question at all about that.
To be fair, when some players realised this, their attitude changed.
I hate to ask this, and it's not acting the maggot, but are things so bad at Pats that it's literally day to day? Is the cloth being cut to just about cover the body?
Not according to Mr McGuinness last nightQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
say a lot of things, and their agents on committee and twitter,
The leader said last night that if the club engaed with them in july there wouldnt have been a problem. One club i know went to the pfai first before the fai or anyone else to engage with them and tell them things were going to happen the way things were going. It was thrown back in their faces, the pfaI threw a wobbly, told everyone in power the club was finished, the pfai stormed the dressing room at a game cleansing out without realising it the locals of the team.
That club continues to place the ball on the centre circle come every friday and a championships on saturday no thanks to the pfai and its nuts all over €50
Didn't watch it but he's told lies in the past, and I've no doubt he'll tell them againQuote:
Originally Posted by WoodquayBoy
Stephen McGuinness is a straight-up, honest man. Sure he's the leader of a union for god's sake!
Have to say the debate on MNS came across as pretty okay. I don't know how much I'd believe of Richie, he made some decent poitns but it was clear El Jefe from the PFAI didn't like some of the less than truthful things Richie had been spinning. The funny thing about Richie is he has so many stories, yet never seems to come up with the goods.
They all agreed on one thing, the league came out of it worse and all sides messed up.
What did Sadlier say or write that you believe is "less than truthful"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
What does this mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Read some of his back articles, listen to some of his interviews. He's entertaining, not stupid, but certainly not what he tries to portray. He's a different voice but not reliable.
Seeing as you were talking about the exchanges between McGuinness and Sadlier, would you care to stop waffling and answer Ezekial?
The one that, at least from my recollection, McGuinness explicitly denied was that some players had offered to break the picket and fulfill the fixture. I don't think Sadlier took him up on it.
I'd imagine if Sadlier took him to task over that issue, then he might have found himself in a situation where he would have had to name names to prove his point, or maybe say something that he didn't want to say on TV. He obviously didn't want to go down that route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I found it stupid when McGuinness said that the players took to the field without any bonuses as if they should be applauded for it. Well why the f*ck did they ask for bonus so? And why did they threaten to go on strike?
McGuinness is 100% wrong on this. And no, I won't be naming names eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Well he got his butt kicked and handed back to him on MNS, he came across and reactionary and OTT in the path he and the players chose, he also didn't come across well the way he delivered him side of the story, trying to shout down Richie and he cleared didn't have anything to come back with when Richie asked was every other option explored first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
The situation the players / manager / club / fans are in now is a disaster, and someone is gonna have to bite their tongue to resolve it. And all this is down to the way it was handled. McGuinness said the club wouldn't talk to him ... i'd love to know how he was asking?
Honest man, he doesn't seem to be now ..... and 'leader of a union' doesn't mean he is a good one, or at least he could have done alot better on this occasion.
I'd be fairly sure that was sarcasm...
The situation is finished. Sure there'll be lingering feelings form some, but vast majority agree its time to move onQuote:
Originally Posted by A face
I raised this earlier in the thread about the legality. In the union they are affiliated to, there's no way the union would sanction action in such circumstances - you'd have to be able to prove that you'd followed any agreed procedures, gone through the appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms, properly balloted for action (properly audited ballot), and then given the appropriate notice. In a proper Trade Union (despite some of the comments here) strike is that very last option, not the first. And then you have the tweets...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
I know but i'm just reiterating reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Like any strike, when the trade union leaders and ambulance chasing politicians looking for the newspaper head lines are gone its the people in the work place who have to suck it up. I think most people then realise its best to just get on with it, its not like the TU Leaders or politicians are actually gonna do anything for ya.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
In short the players hadn't a leg to stand on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Calm down Richie, you can explain yourself :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
The union is the one with the issue if it sanctions what is in effect an illegal strike. The players would have the issue if they went on strike without union sanction, but iirc that'd be disciplinary action as an employee rather than the threat of being sued.Quote:
Originally Posted by A face
Is this the best you can do to back up your comments on Sadlier?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Based on this, I think it is fair to conclude that you were spouting drivel (shades of weecountyman again)
Spudu-lie-a?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezeikial
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezeikial
Next he'll be calling it 'banter'...
While not wishing to lower myself to silliness, I'll let your false insinuation pass, as childish wumming is just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezeikial
Read Richies articles in the Sindo and there are regular tales that seem to pass around every after dinner speech or gossip which seem to have taken place in or around Milwall. It's his concern and it's at least an Irish person telling them. Richie made claims even on the radio about what was going on inside the Pats camp which ran outside the lines taken by the club and PFAI, now either he was being straight or sensational, I don't think he was being fully truthful and while he wouldn't name names (even Dodge has names he won't name) and rightly so because there would be a backlash against the ones who were hardline, he could have left it out altogether instead of saying it. Then again, he's with the Sindo so it sells. Hope that explains it and no more with the false insinuations. Thanks.
Passing interest, just that, nothing more.