Owen Garvan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

What did he say about his squad selection?I don't think the video is available outside the UK.

Garvan can't play in the league until January, but he would have been able to play in the cup if they'd not been knocked out.

---

This is what he said:-

"We have lost five games since we announced the 25-man squad and I feel there's something wrong there. I don't feel we've got the same spirit,"
the manager said. Maybe we changed too many, but that squad is what we have got until January, so they better buck up."

It seems Owen knew a lot of the players would not be happy with his new squad, including and probably in particular his own omission.
That's how I read it anyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...to-Fulham.html

Hadn't really expected Garvan to out-live Holloway at Palace when I first read his tweet a few months ago, but, for his sake, I'm pleased to see he was right in the end. Seems the squad selection really damaged morale at the club. Shame Garvan can't play for the club again until January, mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

However I am not sure if I understand why he has to stick with that squad, I thought you could play who ever you liked, apparently not.

---

Every Premier League club has to select a 25-man squad for the season at its outset. As Charlie points out, that can be amended in January after the transfer window has re-opened. It's been that way since 2010. More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/8858634.stm

Quote:

---

In and around this year's usual summer transfer gossip, you may have noticed the mention of 25-man squads and home-grown player quotas.

The 2010-11 Premier League season will see top flight clubs forced to comply with rules over the size and make-up of their squads.

The Premier League says the new rules are designed to increase the number of young 'home-grown' players in the Premier League, with a long-term aim of giving more options to the England manager.

But what will they actually mean in practice? BBC Sport explains the key points of the new system:

- Clubs register a squad of up to 25 players, which must include at least eight 'home-grown' players, at the end of each transfer window.
- Home-grown players do not have to be English; home-grown players are defined as those who "irrespective of nationality or age, have been affiliated to the FA or Welsh FA for a period of three seasons or 36 months prior to 21st birthday"
- Clubs can supplement squad with unlimited number of players under the age of 21.
- Changes can be made only during transfer windows, although in exceptional circumstances (eg goalkeeping injury crisis) moves could be allowed.
- Players loaned to Football League clubs cannot be replaced, but can regain their spot on return to parent club.
- Rules apply only to Premier League matches, not European, FA Cup or League Cup action.
- First deadline is 1700 BST on 1 September (24 hours after end of August transfer window).

---

In spite of that, clubs can also be punished for fielding what the league perceives to be a less than "full strength" selection. I find that ridiculous since all 25 players have been registered for the season and, thus, a manager should logically be entitled to select from that squad whomever he feels is best suited to delivering the best result for his team on any particular day. Who are the Premier League to decide what constitutes a "full strength" selection? Not only should questions of team selection (within the boundaries of the squads registered with them) be outside their realm of authority, it's impossible to quantify something so subjective anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Hadn't really expected Garvan to out-live Holloway at Palace when I first read his tweet a few months ago, but he was right in the end. Shame he can't play for the club again until January, mind.



Every Premier League club has to select a 25-man squad for the season at its outset. As Charlie points out, that can be amended in January after the transfer window has re-opened. It's been that way since 2010. More info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/8858634.stm

---

The bit that confused me was Owen played the first couple of games or so, I guess that was before the transfer window closed.

It would make more sense to me have everything sorted out before the season starts.

Puzzled me too. I had Garvan in my Fantasy Premier League team and all. Was gobsmacked by his omission. Holloway had nerve!

What was the supposed nature of his "attitude problem"? Did he and Holloway fall out over something in particular?

Also, wouldn't Owen and Palace be better served by sending him on loan, then or even now, than having him disgruntled around the place sending tweets like that. Should have been in that 25 comfortably anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

What was the supposed nature of his "attitude problem"? Did he and Holloway fall out over something in particular?

---

"In fact if it wasn't for a conversation we had the week before, because he wasn't going to be in the starting XI, he would have been in my 25.

"He made it totally clear to me that he didn't want to be in the 25 if he wasn't starting almost every week. I couldn't guarantee him that." - Ian Holloway

That sounds like a huge cop-out. It's not Garvan's place to decide if he's in the squad or not. Sounds like Holloway got a bee in his bonnet and decided to lay the blame on the player.

Exactly. If Holloway had wanted him in the squad, he could have registered him whether Garvan liked it or not. And wouldn't he have beeb obliged to play anyway, or to fulfil the duties to which he was contractually bound, in other words, even if he didn't want to?

He would have been obliged to play, and it's not like he's a star player who can afford to hold a club to ransom. He'd have done as he was told and probably would have set out to prove his manager wrong.

I mentioned how English Premier League clubs can be punished for fielding sides not deemed by the authorities to be "full strength" a few posts back. Of course, both Wolves and Blackpool suffered punishment in recent seasons as a result of this dubious and inconsistently-enforced rule. I would assume that the English League Cup has a similar rule in place to which competing clubs are "supposed" to adhere, but, looking at some of the line-ups from games in that competition this evening, I'm forced to wonder how clubs can get away with fielding whole teams of players that wouldn't see first-team action otherwise were it not for the status of the game and their club's lesser opinion of the competition.

Rule 6.2 of the Football League Cup:

Quote:

---

6.2 Each Club shall play its full available strength in and during all Cup Competition matches, unless some satisfactory reason is given. The Board will from time to time issue a policy as to what constitutes 'full available strength'. In the event of the explanation not being deemed satisfactory the Management Committee shall have power to impose such penalties as they shall think fit. The provisions governing disciplinary matters in relation to the Competition are contained in Rule 23.

---

Obviously not enforced. I suspect the Football League knows which side its bread is buttered on and that many of the stronger Premier League teams (not under the League's remit, remember) would happily pull out of the competition entirely and concentrate on more commercially-fruitful competitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I mentioned how English Premier League clubs can be punished for fielding sides not deemed by the authorities to be "full strength" a few posts back. Of course, both Wolves and Blackpool suffered punishment in recent seasons as a result of this dubious and inconsistently-enforced rule. I would assume that the English League Cup has a similar rule in place to which competing clubs are "supposed" to adhere, but, looking at some of the line-ups from games in that competition this evening, I'm forced to wonder how clubs can get away with fielding whole teams of players that wouldn't see first-team action otherwise were it not for the status of the game and their club's lesser opinion of the competition.

---

That kind of ties in with my views on Roy Keane not playing friendlies, clubs often keep players out of cup games, especially against inferior sides in order to try and achieve the best possible
result over the season. Alex would never make Roy play every minor cup game, indeed nor would Mick McCarthy field his strongest squad for many cup games, indeed I seem to recall
Mick McCarthy being rapped on the knuckles by the FA for not fielding his strongest side in cup matches. Yet oddly he expected Roy to play every international friendly.
So to me Mick seems to be adopting a bizarre double standard there, he seems to believe resting players is good for his club side but not for the international side.

Hence I also believe the FA are wrong on expecting the manager to field their best side for every game no matter how minor. Managers have the clubs best interest at heart
so they should be allowed to get on with it and field whatever team they like. Fielding a weaker side in the early stages of cup competition in most cases will increase the
chances of them winning the cup as they preserves their best players for the tougher later stages, I don't see anything wrong with that. If they get beaten in the
early stages because of it, so be it, that is the risk they take, but they calculate the risk is worth the potential benefit.

You see similar thing in other sports, for example in cricket they often put in a 'night watchman' to protect a top batsman from facing the opening bowling twice.
Sometime it works sometimes it's a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Rule 6.2 of the Football League Cup:



Obviously not enforced. I suspect the Football League knows which side its bread is buttered on and that many of the stronger Premier League teams (not under the League's remit, remember) would happily pull out of the competition entirely and concentrate on more commercially-fruitful competitions.

---

Well apart from anything else I think essentially the rule is unenforceable, the Football League would have to determine which players are fit and who isn't and what is
the strongest side. If you were to take it to it's logical conclusion the and FL official or panel would have to select the team the subs and decide what subs were made
and when, thus making the manager redundant. Obviously ludicrous!!
The FL should stay out of trying to micro manage teams, it's not their job.
I also think top sides fielding weakened teams is good for the cup, everyone likes seeing a giant killing act in the cup, just so long as it is not the giant they support!
Certainly I prefer to see a 'minnow' taking on one of the big clubs in the later stages of the club, it makes for a more interesting tie almost everyone will be
supporting the smaller side.

I agree with you that it ought to be a manager's prerogative as to who he wishes to select for a particular match and that it should be no business of the governing authority so long as he selects eligible players or players already registered for a specific competition with the authority. As you say, the role of manager is undermined, or theoretically nullified even, if the ultimate judgment rests (at least in law) with the governing authority.

As for the Roy Keane issue, his selection or omission would have been Mick's decision to make; not Roy's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Mick McCarthy being rapped on the knuckles by the FA for not fielding his strongest side in cup matches. Yet oddly he expected Roy to play every international friendly.
So to me Mick seems to be adopting a bizarre double standard there, he seems to believe resting players is good for his club side but not for the international side.

---

When did Mick state that expectation of his about Roy?

Come on now lads, take this to the Seamus Coleman thread where it belongs :)

I'm not going anywhere until I get a plain and simple answer. In one line please Tricky.
I do hope you're not faking an argument against Mick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I agree with you that it ought to be a manager's prerogative as to who he wishes to select for a particular match and that it should be no business of the governing authority so long as he selects eligible players or players already registered for a specific competition with the authority. As you say, the role of manager is undermined, or theoretically nullified even, if the ultimate judgment rests (at least in law) with the governing authority.

As for the Roy Keane issue, his selection or omission would have been Mick's decision to make; not Roy's.

---

Well he can omit Roy from his selection, but he cannot force him to play for him, as it happened it seemed
Roy made the decision because he could not bring himself to play in such a set-up. You can blame who you like for that.
Maybe a 1/3 each to the FAI Roy and Mick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

When did Mick state that expectation of his about Roy?

---

Well I assume he did unless proved otherwise.

Lads, take this to the eligibility thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

I'm not going anywhere until I get a plain and simple answer. In one line please Tricky.
I do hope you're not faking an argument against Mick.

---

You’re a liar… you’re a f***ing w****r. I didn’t rate you as a poster, and I don’t rate you as a person. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Come on now lads, take this to the Seamus Coleman thread where it belongs :)

---

Or get, er, a time machine...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Well he can omit Roy from his selection, but he cannot force him to play for him

---

Well, obviously; Roy was under no contractual obligation to play for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Well I assume he did unless proved otherwise.

---

You can't just assume that. You made the assertion and have failed to provide evidence to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Well I assume he did unless proved otherwise.

---

Your assumptions aren't worth a bean, Tricky :)
How about, you searched everywhere, couldn't find anything, nada, to support your claim, therefore the obvious explanation holds, it ain't true because Mick never expressed that expectation.

OK well the specific incident refereed to the second leg of the Iran game, Mick accused Roy of faking injury.
However it was similar to a friendly in that it was not really a key game, they didn't need Roy to get the result
they needed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...Euro-2012.html


And of course if Roy were faking injury for non-friendly games the implication is he faked it for friendly games too
so I think I have to say I was right on that point.

Roy said he would have played but for Mick accusing him of feigning injury, Mick was wrong to do that as it was not something he
could prove.

Second leg of a World Cup playoff not a key game? Similar to a friendly?

I think you should actually ban yourself from using this forum for a fortnight just for the sheer dumbness of that remark.

I'd say it was one of the most important games in our history. 2-0 was barely a foregone conclusion especially in front of a huge crowd and given that they should have scored at least twice in Dublin.

If Keane was capable of playing if we hadn't got a "positive result" in Dublin he was capable of at least being on the bench in Tehran. He slipped off before breakfast after the home game and didn't even wish the squad good luck. Leader my ar$e.

Mick had every right to have a go at him. If you believe he went home from a World Cup because nasty Mick said something bad about him in the spur of the moment, and that actually had a ring of truth to it, in response to a calculated attack on Mick and his character then you're beyond having an objective conversation with on this topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Second leg of a World Cup playoff not a key game? Similar to a friendly?

I think you should actually ban yourself from using this forum for a fortnight just for the sheer dumbness of that remark.

I'd say it was one of the most important games in our history. 2-0 was barely a foregone conclusion especially in front of a huge crowd and given that they should have scored at least twice in Dublin.

If Keane was capable of playing if we hadn't got a "positive result" in Dublin he was capable of at least being on the bench in Tehran. He slipped off before breakfast after the home game and didn't even wish the squad good luck. Leader my ar$e.

Mick had every right to have a go at him. If you believe he went home from a World Cup because nasty Mick said something bad about him in the spur of the moment, and that actually had a ring of truth to it, in response to a calculated attack on Mick and his character then you're beyond having an objective conversation with on this topic.

---

Well it seems to me Roy was playing on an injury, prior to the Iran game he had missed 6 competitive games for Man U now doubt
faking a knee injury so he could stay at home watching TV. He didn't play for Man U 5 days prior to the match so he clearly was not fit
then, I expect he was not fully fit for the first Iran game either but did so out of loyalty to his country.

Had he wanted to he could *easily* have missed that match and the second leg without facing any criticism whatsoever, yet he
didn't he played, your argument has a huge hole in it, as does Micks.

Feigning injury is not Roy's style anyway, he could easily have escaped Saipan without criticism by saying his knee was playing up,
but he didn't, he told Mick to f-off instead.

Yes he might have gone the extra mile and risked ending his playing career by continuing to play on his injured knee if Ireland
really were in trouble, but they were not, if they could not defend a 2-0 lead without him it would be as well they didn't go anyway.

As for me banning myself for two week for my stupid comments, you might consider taking a short break yourself!!

In fact there is 4 week Antarctic cruise here

http://www.responsibletravel.com/hol...om-new-zealand

A chance to cool down perhaps!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Well it seems to me Roy was playing on an injury, prior to the Iran game he had missed 6 competitive games for Man U now doubt
faking a knee injury so he could stay at home watching TV. He didn't play for Man U 5 days prior to the match so he clearly was not fit
then, I expect he was not fully fit for the first Iran game either but did so out of loyalty to his country.

---

You jump to an awful lot of suspect conclusions, Tricky. He may have been injured prior to the game, but that doesn't mean you can assume he played against Iran with an injury. In fact, because he played the game, it would be more rational to assume he was fit to play. It's self-evident. If he was fit for the home leg, why wouldn't he have been fit enough to at least travel for the away leg? He played the full 90 minutes of the first leg. Had he aggravated the previous injury during the game, he'd have been taken off surely, but as Stutts highlighted, he returned to Manchester the very next morning. Did the FAI doctors check him after the first leg?

Quote:

---

Feigning injury is not Roy's style anyway, he could easily have escaped Saipan without criticism by saying his knee was playing up,
but he didn't, he told Mick to f-off instead.

---

That's style alright!

Quote:

---

Yes he might have gone the extra mile and risked ending his playing career by continuing to play on his injured knee if Ireland
really were in trouble, but they were not, if they could not defend a 2-0 lead without him it would be as well they didn't go anyway.

---

Eh? Why bother even going to the World Cup given our reliance on Roy in qualifying? Why need he have bothered showing up for the qualifiers in the first place given our reliance on him? Sure, why bother do anything ourselves that might partly rely on the assistance of another?... :rolleyes:

He was supposed to be our captain, wasn't he?

How was anyone to know how the fixture would pan out before it took place? I certainly know I was very tense in the lead-up. It wasn't going to be the walk-over you seem to have thought it was going to be. Stop dismissing the significance of the fixture in order to bolster your fantasy "Roy was right about everything" narrative. It's ridiculous. You can't assume the tie was over with a 2-0 home win and the second 90 minutes still to play in an incredibly hostile atmosphere in unfamiliar Tehran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

You jump to an awful lot of suspect conclusions, Tricky. He may have been injured prior to the game, but that doesn't mean you can assume he played against Iran with an injury. In fact, because he played the game, it would be more rational to assume he was fit to play. It's self-evident. If he was fit for the home leg, why wouldn't he have been fit enough to at least travel for the away leg? He played the full 90 minutes of the first leg. Had he aggravated the previous injury during the game, he'd have been taken off surely, but as Stutts highlighted, he returned to Manchester the very next morning. Did the FAI doctors check him after the first leg?
That's style alright!
Eh? Why bother even going to the World Cup given our reliance on Roy in qualifying? Why need he have bothered showing up for the qualifiers in the first place given our reliance on him? Sure, why bother do anything ourselves that might partly rely on the assistance of another?... :rolleyes:

He was supposed to be our captain, wasn't he?

How was anyone to know how the fixture would pan out before it took place? I certainly know I was very tense in the lead-up. It wasn't going to be the walk-over you seem to have thought it was going to be. Stop dismissing the significance of the fixture in order to bolster your fantasy "Roy was right about everything" narrative. It's ridiculous. You can't assume the tie was over with a 2-0 home win and the second 90 minutes still to play in an incredibly hostile atmosphere in unfamiliar Tehran.

---

Well my assumption he was not fit to play is as valid as one that he was fit to play, he had just come back form injury, I expect he came back a little to early in order to help Ireland qualify and then realised he needed a little more time to recover, nothing wrong with that.
Doctor's are only human, they do not know how a patient feels, they can't prove someone feels well.

I would be interested to know the last time Ireland had a 2 goal lead in two legged match turned over, not very often I expect, if at all.

The problem is there is no evidence he feigned injury or did not want to play, it is very difficult to make
the case that Roy help Ireland to a 2-0 lead and then willfully chose to scupper their chance my missing the second leg. As I said before (I think) had he not wanted to play he could easily have missed both matches by playing up his injury and avoided having any accusations of feigning injury flung at him.

Seem to me he just did his best for Ireland without any regard to how it looked to the public, and that
fit in with the type of person he is, he is his own man and doesn't give a toss what the the press and public think, indeed I think he said the very same, something like why "should I bother what people think, I could be dead tomorrow?"

As for his captaincy, well he got his side tot he world cup finals, so one of our best captains in that respect.

Finally regarding suspect conclusion, their is big difference between me speculating he was unfit and other speculation he was fit, because my speculation is not casting aspersion on his character, not does it open me to allegation of libel or slander as saying he was feigninig injury.

So good job Roy is the the type to sue!

Actually Roy could, probably even now, sue Mick for libel or slander!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Finally regarding suspect conclusion, their is big difference between me speculating he was unfit and other speculation he was fit, because my speculation is not casting aspersion on his character, not does it open me to allegation of libel or slander as saying he was feigninig injury.

So good job Roy is the the type to sue!

Actually Roy could, probably even now, sue Mick for libel or slander!!!

---

Actually Mick never accused Roy of faking injury. It was just a convenient exit strategy which finally fell onto Roy's lap.
But if you can find any evidence otherwise, Tricky??
Saipan has more myths out there than truths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

I would be interested to know the last time Ireland had a 2 goal lead in two legged match turned over, not very often I expect, if at all.

---

How many two-legged ties have we ever played? And on how many of those rare occasions, other than Iran, would we have had a two-goal lead to defend after the first leg? I'd guess about none. When we have managed to make it to the play-offs, our record hasn't been the greatest. Had we ever successfully navigated our way through a play-off prior to 2001 even? There would have been absolutely no reason whatsoever to have taken the tie as a foregone conclusion despite the two-goal lead. To do so would have been highly reckless.

Did Roy not go to Tehran, grow a beard and become president???

http://topnews.in/law/files/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-017.jpg

I wonder if he has any chance of making the squad of 25 in January? He doesn't strike me as a Pulis kind of player.

I was thinking the same thing when Pulis was appointed. Might be better off if he doesn't make the squad, than to make it and be rarely used.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...-pulis-2956301

It would be disappointing if he wasn't given a chance after helping them get promoted.

He's a better than several midfielders in that squad.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...palace-2995019

Amusingly, Garvan could be reunited with Holloway at Millwall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOneWhoKnocks

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/footba...palace-2995019

Amusingly, Garvan could be reunited with Holloway at Millwall.

---

Awkward!

How the hell can Holloway try to sign Garvan after what went on???
Having said that I bet it will happen truth is always stranger than fiction, or something like that.

maybe the sexual tension was just too much and they had to sleep with each other to get it out of the way and now that that has happened, theyre fine.

I don't know, I don't have all the answers.

http://www.herald.ie/sport/soccer/ow...-29926056.html

Garvan's hopes of being named in the 25 man squad at the beginning of February have been hit by injury. He's on the recovery trail at the moment and hoping to impress Pulis.