Ifsa?

**Gary** · 14/09/2002, 5:37 PM

Went to the meeting with Michael Nugent today in Cashmans in Cork, and i must say that it was the most utter twaddle Ive listened to in a long time. They seemd to have no agenda whatsoever, apart, that is, from knocking Alan Hunter of some other association. There was a small bit of constructive criticism toward the FAI and the Sky deal, but nothing earth shattering. It was like a normal pub chat, with the usual vendettas against your enemies. If this association is to survive, well itll have to make its OWN AGENDA, not knock others.

Suffice to say, id be slow to go again.

**�anna** · 14/09/2002, 7:59 PM

yeah. i went along expecting it to be positive. but there was way too much coincentration on alan hunter for my liking. the guy sounds like a con-man, and if so he should just be ignored, rather than taken on in a publicity battle.

**dahamsta** · 15/09/2002, 1:02 AM

He's sounded like that to me ever since he started posting on Foot.ie. Plus his netiquette leaves a lot to be desired, he's double-posted, off-thread posted and just plain guff-posted, and never oonce apologised when I've asked him to stop. I've been tempted to ban him on several occasions.

Perhaps I should start a poll. Community democracy at its best?

adam

**Colm** · 15/09/2002, 1:18 PM

Yeah, i wasnt overly impressed either. They are right in a lot of what the said about the FAI and that Alan Hunter is an idiot and a conman, but they concentrated far too much on these topics. We were there for about 2 hours and I still know very little about what their ACTUAL agenda and plans are. IMO, the only positive thing they have done so far is producing those leaflets promoting el games. This organisation could work but at the moment I dont think it will!

**Michael Nugent** · 16/09/2002, 12:57 PM

Hi GWA, Eanna, Colm,

I must say I'm a bit taken aback by these comments, although I accept completely that they are genuine reactions, that we must have completely failed to convey to you what we thought we were conveying, and we take responsibility for that.

We did outline the agenda first, but it was obviously overshadowed by what were responses to questions, and the questions that people wanted to ask guided what was said in response, hence the emphasis on certain issues.

That was a conscious plan for the meeting, which was announced at the start of the meeting, and it was clearly a mistake. We'll obviously have to learn from that.

However, here's my dilemma having read these messages here.

Three of us went to Cork on Friday afternoon, we watched the Rovers match with City fans, we spent the night in the Beer Garden with members of the City Supporters Club, we had lunch on Saturday with an officer of the Supporters Club, and after the meeting and before we got the train back we had further chats with officers of both the Official and Independent Cork City Supporters Club.

Throughout these discussions (in which, to be fair, much more could be teased out than in a two-hour meeting), the reaction to Irish Fans United was extremely positive: strong support for the idea, for the agenda, and an enthusiasm to help make it happen. So that is the current position with regard to the organisations that represent City supporters.

I'm still very confident that Irish Fans United will work, though the timescale and effort involved will be greater than anticipated, particularly as it seems clear that we will have to hold meetings in each town or city rather than just for a broad region.

Michael

**Michael Nugent** · 16/09/2002, 1:15 PM

Originally posted by Vetinari
He's sounded like that to me ever since he started posting on Foot.ie. Plus his netiquette leaves a lot to be desired, he's double-posted, off-thread posted and just plain guff-posted, and never oonce apologised when I've asked him to stop. I've been tempted to ban him on several occasions.

Perhaps I should start a poll. Community democracy at its best?

adam

Hi Adam,

You're responding here to a comment about Alan Hunter, who I haven't seen posting anything here.

As I am the only other person mentioned in the messages, your comments seem to be referring to me.

I generally ignore inaccurate and defamatory abuse, but it takes on an added strength when it is posted by the moderator of a forum.

Before I take the time to respond, could you please clarify who your message is referring to?

Michael

Neil · 16/09/2002, 2:00 PM

Anyone who spends time organising leaflet distribution advertising eL games is doing no harm IMO.

I think people are being a bit harsh.

**dahamsta** · 16/09/2002, 5:42 PM

You know very well I'm referring to you Michael, and you'd do well to drop the solicitor-speak when you're talking to me. I don't take well to it, as many will testify.

My comments were absolutely accurate, in that since you joined Foot.ie, you've cross-posted across the Foot.ie boards, you've started new threads for pre-existing topics, and you've posted enormous blocks of text that have little or no place here. Neither were they defamatory or abusive, and as I've already alluded, you'd do well not to make accusations like that on Foot.ie.

I run Foot.ie Michael, and I'm very concerned about your use of the site as a soapbox. I don't know you, I don't particularly trust you, and I don't particularly want you here; however I'm willing to tolerate you to a degree for the community's benefit. Don't push your luck though. It only takes a couple of clicks to delete your account. Do we understand each other?

adam

**A face** · 16/09/2002, 6:41 PM

I think Gary is being very reactionary one this one, chill out man, i think GWA, Eanna, Colm, have not listened or just didn't hear alot of what was being said.

But lads ...... for the love of god, before you all blow up and start an online running battle with anyone that shares a different opinion, can you all just look at the bigger picture, alot of what was said is totally true (even if quite unbelieveible, the FAI are a sham) Relax lads. It is a step in the right direction and we need as many of them as possible.

That is unless you can all come up with a better suggestion instead. In fact that is a good policy for the rest of this thread .... if you are going to knock the meeting and its objectives, at the very least offer a suggestion aswell.

For my own part .... i was very impressed and surprised at your reaction. And Gary .... your first comment if you think about it served no purpose only to undermine everything discused at the meeting .... if it was that bad why didn't you walk out EARLIER.

Later

**Michael Nugent** · 17/09/2002, 10:21 AM

Hi A Face,

That's a relief to read that - I was starting to think I had been at a different meeting and that everyone we met in Cork before and after the meeting had just been pretending to agree with us :-)

That said, we are open to constructive criticism. If anyone has any feedback on the agenda that IFU has outlined, both at the start of the Cork meeting and also published elsewhere on this forum, please feel free to make suggestions and they will be treated seriously.

I agree as well that we should try to resolve any differences of opinion that we have in a constructive manner.

I'm going to private mail Adam about the posts above and see if we can resolve whatever misunderstanding may have led to them.

Michael

**pete** · 17/09/2002, 10:45 AM

Hell hath no fury as Adam & multile posts

IFU may have some worthy goals but i cannot support it when its primary goal is the removal of the FAIs ability to sell tv rights to international rights at the market price. As the Bertie Bowl project proves no irish sports bosy can rely on the government for funding until they see the cash in theri hands - failkure to carve out their own revenue sources will leave irish sport organisations constantly impovertised.
While the leaflet promotion campiagns are worthy i'm a natural cynic & cannot stop thinking that they meerly a means to get supporters groups on board with the IFU (e.g. handing leaflets out as fans enter the ground) - IMO the IFU needs supporters groups more than eL needs the IFU.

Allowing for all this I not going to completely knock someone whose doing someone i'm not doing myself.

natural cynic.

**A face** · 17/09/2002, 11:18 AM

"its primary goal is the removal of the FAIs ability to sell tv rights to international rights at the market price"

It is NOT, that is not the point (as explained at the meeting, seriously lads i dont know how everyone seems to got this one wrong) ..... That was just a push come to shove. The Sky money is just 4% of the FAI's annual income, so you would have to wonder why they took this move and disenfranchised the fans ot a degree. The short of it (from what i have gathered) is that players and fans are never/have never been/will ever be consulted on any major change in the game unless there are moves made to make a difference on this aspect. And this Alan Hunter guy claims to represent the fans but actually doesn't.

To be honest, if anyone had any questions they should have raised them at the meeting and have it answered then.

**A face** · 17/09/2002, 11:38 AM

as explained at the meeting, seriously lads i dont know how everyone seems to got this one wrong

Sorry Pete .... i forgot you weren't there. Basically Pete the SKy thing is not the objective or the IFU. Seriously .... if you can get to a meeting you should try, just to see what you think.

**Macy** · 17/09/2002, 11:48 AM

Face, I also haven't been able to make any meetings, but I believe Pete is right in that organisation was formed out of the Sky deal. No-one had heard of this guy on the mb's until it was a reaction to the sky deal.

Personally I think that with the Bertie Bowl money not coming on line at all now, then the FAI have been proved even more right to take Murdochs (admittedly filthy) lucre.....

I am reserving judgement, but like Pete I'm not going to support the organisation until it is willing to drop the total opposition to the sky deal.... RTE have done nothing for football in this country, and don't deserve to have the rights to any of it - and I won't join an organisation that by default is insisting that they should get rights for peanuts...

Another natural cynic.

**A face** · 17/09/2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Macy
Face, I also haven't been able to make any meetings, but I believe Pete is right in that organisation was formed out of the Sky deal. No-one had heard of this guy on the mb's until it was a reaction to the sky deal.

Personally I think that with the Bertie Bowl money not coming on line at all now, then the FAI have been proved even more right to take Murdochs (admittedly filthy) lucre.....

I am reserving judgement, but like Pete I'm not going to support the organisation until it is willing to drop the total opposition to the sky deal.... RTE have done nothing for football in this country, and don't deserve to have the rights to any of it - and I won't join an organisation that by default is insisting that they should get rights for peanuts...

Another natural cynic.

Hear hear ...... i agree totally. I couldn't have said it better myself, in fact i think RT� made a total hash of their bid and that the actual coverage ot the games will be times better than RT� could ever do. And the FAI got nearly four times the money. I am all for that ..... the issue i am most concerned with is the way the FAI operate. It is totally hap-hazard and they are failing to represent our nation in the best way possible.

Lads i am all for the sky thing, but the IFU had to start somewhere, (i know it is a touchy subject with some people, it is not so much the actually deal, it is the way it came about, is why IFU started, lads the FAI at the best of times are shady characters and it needs addressing, that is if we want it to get better) it is an organisation which wants to bring change for the better, and i am all for that.

At present the FAI ignore the players and it is worse for the fans. This cant be disputed. It needs to change.

Thoughts ???

**pete** · 17/09/2002, 12:50 PM

I was at the first IFU public meeting in Dublin - i'm not suggesting anyone is lying but its my opinion that everything else is secondary to the IFU/Mr. Nugents opposition to the Sky deal.

btw i don't have sky sports or have any desire to subscribe to said cable channels.

As has been said many many times by eL fans the senior international games are but a fraction of irish football & there really only 1 or 2 at most games anyone really has an interest in viewing - how many people would take time off work or travel great distances to watch Ireland v Albania?

**eoinh** · 17/09/2002, 1:14 PM

first of all Vetinari i though your reaction to Michael Nugent was well out of order and unless you were privately reminding him of the rules in here then maybe he deserves an apology!
secondly, i was at the meeting and i must say i was really disappointed. this organisation seems to me to be primarily interested in the sky deal. there are so many pressing problems with football in this country but the sky deal is the least of our worries, but Michael you seem to have a fixation about it. in my opinion its nothing to get excited about. the way domestic soccer in this country is run and the way our national broadcaster treats it is the most important problem and has been for some time. i think thats why most of the people who go to your meetings are eircom league fans. RTE can be influenced unlike some of the other media organisations. its not a free service i am forced to pay a licence fee every year to watch it. there were nearly 20,000 people at the premier division matchs on the Friday evening before your meeting which for a small country isnt too bad, but virtually no coverage on OUR national broadcaster. this really makes me mad and its a disgrace. when you see what a bit of planning in countries like norway and israel have achieved it should make us feel ashamed. i think that trying to include everybody wont work as there will be too many objectives eg including womens football and junoir football. i cant be a member of something like this but i would still help out on distributing leaflets up here in waterford as i think that is a good idea.

**dahamsta** · 17/09/2002, 1:35 PM

first of all Vetinari i though your reaction to Michael Nugent was well out of order and unless you were privately reminding him of the rules in here then maybe he deserves an apology!

I've reminded him of the rules before, which is why I have no respect for him. I'm allowed dislike someone for what I see as an abuse of a resource I provide to the community, aren't?

adam

**A face** · 17/09/2002, 1:59 PM

United we stand ..... you know the rest

**�anna** · 17/09/2002, 6:04 PM

I'm not totally against Irish Fans United at all. There were a good number of positives to come out of the meeting. I was just making clear that I felt there was way too much emphasis on hunter and the sky deal.

michael, what really worried me about the whole thing was you saying that you wanted to wait to build up IFU, before taking on Hunter's group. I don't think IFU should be taking him on. If he is a con-man (and I think thats pretty obvious) he should just be ignored. Forget about him, and concentrate on building IFU up as a representative of fans, not bother taking anyone on.