A drink with Stan

**Daxion** · 08/04/2006, 11:14 AM

-----

**TheJamaicanP.M.** · 08/04/2006, 2:01 PM

The stadium in Teplice has a capacity of 18,424 while the stadium in Kosice has a seating capacity of 8,787.

If this is true, it will mean that Ireland will get just over 1,800 tickets for the Czech game and 870 tickets for the Slovakia game.

It wouldn't surprise me if this is true. The Czechs are known for rotating their games between Prague, Olomouc and Teplice. Indeed, the stadium in Prague is not much bigger than the one in Teplice. The Slovaks don't tend to get large crowds for their international games and this might be one of the reasons for using a smaller stadium. I have a feeling that both the Czechs and Slovaks may have realised that Ireland have the potential to bring a huge away support. They might have moved the games to these cities to make it difficult for Irish fans to travel there and ensure that there is a more partisan home support. It reminds me of the Turks playing us in Bursa in 1999. The Germans would appear to have used similar reasoning when fixing the game for Stuttgart.

**Roo69** · 08/04/2006, 2:23 PM

[QUOTE=Daxion]I was in the Crown in Cricklewood and had a great chat with Stan last night.[QUOTE]

He was out at the Bray Vs St. Pats league cup game during the week, Brian Kerr was there as well

**Coltron** · 08/04/2006, 2:28 PM

I watched the Czechs play Macadonia in Teplice during their qualifing campaign last summer. It's not that far from Prague on the train between 1 1/2-2 hours. Only cost three euro in, or something ridiculous like that. Stadium wasn't full either only about 3/4 of capacity. Nice stadium all the same I think the JPM is right on the size too.

As for the game, they went a goal down after 20 mins, were 2-1 up at HT and 6-1 by FT if memory serves. They played exellent attacking football with well organised moves to dominate Macadonia. If only they had two quality centre halfs they would be among the favourites in June.

**Paddy Garcia** · 08/04/2006, 7:55 PM

Originally Posted by gonzo

& his 'support' for R*ngers FC!

What's that about?

**geysir** · 08/04/2006, 10:05 PM

I like that character assessment, extra-marital activity, poor tactics as national team manager but the only real transgression - he was once a Rangers fan. At last we have the priorities in proper order

**sylvo** · 09/04/2006, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by gonzo

The Forces of Darkness, from G51.

Still he's been 'forgiven' this transgression, as he proved his 'tactics' weren't up to the job in international footy.

Is rather partial to a glass of blanco vino though, but no harm there.

I belive you became good friends with him.

**Feech** · 09/04/2006, 7:14 PM

Originally Posted by TheJamaicanP.M.

They might have moved the games to these cities to make it difficult for Irish fans to travel there and ensure that there is a more partisan home support. It reminds me of the Turks playing us in Bursa in 1999. The Germans would appear to have used similar reasoning when fixing the game for Stuttgart.

I think you might be right about the Germans, it is almost impossible to get to Stuttgart after all...there were almost no Irish fans there when we played England in Stuttgart...

**CollegeTillIDie** · 10/04/2006, 6:23 AM

Originally Posted by Feech

I think you might be right about the Germans, it is almost impossible to get to Stuttgart after all...there were almost no Irish fans there when we played England in Stuttgart...

Classic!

I was there though

**Paddy Garcia** · 10/04/2006, 7:34 PM

Originally Posted by geysir

I like that character assessment, extra-marital activity, poor tactics as national team manager but the only real transgression - he was once a Rangers fan. At last we have the priorities in proper order

Fair point..... though I could never understand why he took our most likely goal scorer off against Switzerland with 20 odd mins to go!

Not for that matter why he turned Nolan down at the end of the last European campaign.

**Plastic Paddy** · 10/04/2006, 8:15 PM

Originally Posted by Paddy Garcia

Not for that matter why he turned Nolan down at the end of the last European campaign.

Do you have proof or is this mere conjecture?

PP

**lopez** · 11/04/2006, 9:25 AM

I'm coming in a bit late here, but can someone explain why Daxion's initial post has been censored? He did have a drink with Stan that night. Did Dax mention Luton and Watford in his post by any chance, like Gonzo has?

**Dodge** · 11/04/2006, 9:27 AM

Its quoted above...

**Cowboy** · 11/04/2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by lopez

I'm coming in a bit late here, but can someone explain why Daxion's initial post has been censored? He did have a drink with Stan that night. Did Dax mention Luton and Watford in his post by any chance, like Gonzo has?

Was wondering the same mi amigo

**Jerry The Saint** · 11/04/2006, 2:37 PM

Originally Posted by Paddy Garcia

Not for that matter why he turned Nolan down at the end of the last European campaign.

He did pick him for Ireland when Nolan was 18 and tried to get him to declare on more than one occasion since then. There's only so many times that someone can tell you to f**k off before you stop begging them (although I haven't heard anywhere else of Nolan making himself available for Ireland but being refused by Kerr. Even Staunton hasn't officially requested a rule change...yet).

**Paddy Garcia** · 11/04/2006, 8:27 PM

Originally Posted by Plastic Paddy

Do you have proof or is this mere conjecture?

PP

I've read that when it looked like we had a reasonable chance of qualifying for the European finals, Nolan made overtures to play for Ireland.

Apparently Kerr was not interested. The suggestion is that a) long memory of the U18's and b) viewed Nolan's approach as cynical on the eve of a finals tournament.

At that stage no rule change would have been required.

**Dodge** · 12/04/2006, 9:47 AM

I ****ing hate Kevin Nolan at this stage. And he's done nothing himself to make me feel this way

**dr_peepee** · 12/04/2006, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Paddy Garcia

Fair point..... though I could never understand why he took our most likely goal scorer off against Switzerland with 20 odd mins to go! .

Kerrs vices annd merits can be stewed over and argued with, but one thing I will vehemently defend him on was subbing Robbie Keane during that game.

Robbie had been brutal and was brutal in the games leading up to it and if anything Kerr was guilty of subbing the wrong forward at times. But against the Swiss he was right to take him off and I can say with a large degree of certainty that most of the stadium agreed with the decision that night.

**tetsujin1979** · 12/04/2006, 10:48 PM

In an ordinary game, then yes, I would agree with taking off a misfiring striker. But the Swiss game was no ordinary game, and we needed goals, 2 players up front clearly were not going to score, why not take off Carr and try three up? Or Holland with 5 minutes to go and put 4 up front? If the Swiss scored, so what?? A draw was as bad as a loss in that game, we needed goals, and by removing a striker Kerr took away another chance to get one.