Adam Barton

[ArdeeBhoy]

Utter drivel.

Erm, except I was replying to points raised by some poster called 'Ealing Green'. Suggest if the content is too painful to respond to, they why raise the points in the first place? Or maybe you don't like the answers.

And we thought you were an expert in the 'comedic', what with all those witty banners and all!

[Predator]

At the latest count, a Poll question on OWC records the following results (152 votes cast to date):

Qn. Is Nigel right to give Barton extra time before committing to NI?

A. What is there to lose? We need all the players we can get: 99 Votes = 65.13%

B. No, there is an important principle at stake here: 28 Votes = 18.42%

C. Not Sure, so will leave it to the Manager as he sees fit: 25 Votes = 16.45%

Would you say OWC is a fair enough indicator of the NI fan demographic? I always got the impression that it was full of 'hardcore' fans Anyway, that's interesting. What's the poll stand at now?

Btw, Re. Owen P: He's been digging at me over Barton (and other topics) since I called him on something he posted on OWC. I don't let him get to me, myself, but I suspect he'll be pleased to have got under your skin (if the way you keep citing him is anything to go by)!

Polley hasn't exactly got under my skin on this issue. However, I did find his desire to play the so-called "tolerant card", as if he was pulling a sly one, on the eligibility issue to be quite contentious.

Then you must have been particularly "weary" when a former ROI manager used the term himself, alongside "unfair", "seedy" and (ahem) "predatory"!

Actually, my reaction to Kerr's words was initially one of surprise, if only for the sheer hypocrisy of his sentiment.

[EalingGreen]

Would you say OWC is a fair enough indicator of the NI fan demographic? I always got the impression that it was full of 'hardcore' fans

No, I wouldn't claim that OWC members represent the NI fanbase as a whole. If nothing else, the fanbase consists of several (often fairly distinct) "constituencies", many of whose members never go near the owc website.

However, insofar as you are correct that the Membership is "hardcore" in a non-perjorative sense (and I think that that is so), I do believe that OWC represents one of the biggest constituencies. That is, over the last 30-odd years, a number of factors (Troubles, crappy stadium, politics, crappy team etc) have seen us lose many of the casual fans who would occasionally boost our attendances hugely for big games etc, thereby making the hardcore relatively so much bigger.

Moreover, I would contend that this hardcore is often more "important" (influential) than other constituencies, since it is vocal, active and campaigning, and/or includes fans who are such in other contexts (FFA, Amalgamation, Govt/Civil Servants etc).

Anyway, that's interesting. What's the poll stand at now?

The thread/Poll has fizzled out. Last post was in November, with only five more votes added since my last summary (above), similarly distributed.

Actually, my reaction to Kerr's words was initially one of surprise, if only for the sheer hypocrisy of his sentiment.

There is no doubt that Kerr's new-found perspective includes a clear element of hypocrisy (though tbf to him, he freely acknowledged that). I suspect it also incorporates a helping of sour grapes at the FAI sacking him (which he does not acknowledge).

But neither must inevitably invalidate the essential truth (imo) of what he was saying, otherwise there would never be a place for whistleblowers* or sacked former employees to have a say on such matters.

* - Bradley Manning anyone? Julian Astrange perhaps?

[Predator]

Moreover, I would contend that this hardcore is often more "important" (influential) than other constituencies, since it is vocal, active and campaigning, and/or includes fans who are such in other contexts (FFA, Amalgamation, Govt/Civil Servants etc).

If the OWC members have more influence, then I worry.Clearly note that I do not intend to tar the entire forum with the one brush, but I came across quite a number of objectionable characters on the forum, many displaying a complete lack of integrity or reason, simply because I voiced an opinion that was contrary to theirs. My unwarranted banning consolidated this view

There is no doubt that Kerr's new-found perspective includes a clear element of hypocrisy (though tbf to him, he freely acknowledged that). I suspect it also incorporates a helping of sour grapes at the FAI sacking him (which he does not acknowledge).

But neither must inevitably invalidate the essential truth (imo) of what he was saying, otherwise there would never be a place for whistleblowers* or sacked former employees to have a say on such matters.

* - Bradley Manning anyone? Julian Astrange perhaps?

There is no apparent truth in Kerr's words. It is a warped opinion. The fact that the FAI welcome all Irish nationals regardless of creed or colour, is neither "seedy", "unfair", or "predatory". The notion of "poaching" is a disastrous concept and does nothing to help the IFA's case. It sometimes makes me laugh out loud. As a poster put it earlier in the year (geysir I think), players are not the property of an association.