I can’t remember the last time there was election for the Chair. It’s usually an election for the Vice-Chair who then takes over as Chair after 3 years.I wouldn't agree with a lot of what our esteemed chairman says and does.
Hard to believe clubs (my own included btw) gave that man a vote. Chickens coming home to roost unfortunately.
Fair point. We voted for him for some position anyway....maybe his previous role.I can’t remember the last time there was election for the Chair. It’s usually an election for the Vice-Chair who then takes over as Chair after 3 years.
It speaks to your point though. There should be more choice for these positions.Fair point. We voted for him for some position anyway....maybe his previous role.
I remember yer wan from Killeagh being very active on social media when she was chair. Except when it came to answering supporters concerns, then it was ignore and blockI wouldn't agree with a lot of what our esteemed chairman says and does.
Hard to believe clubs (my own included btw) gave that man a vote. Chickens coming home to roost unfortunately.
for one of the clubs yes, but if the orher club has enough numbers to go it alone it is necessary for them to do soThe question is, necessary for whom? In the scenario Topper is describing, it sounds like one of the two clubs could go alone but not the other. I'd call that 'absolutely necessary'.
I dont think that really would be an issueI could see that working in certain circumstances, but against it you might be talking about clubs from v far apart being brought together, which imo would make it a less attractive option in terms of commuting to training, kids playing with friends and schoolmates, etc.
i dont disagree with that at all but what if that amalgamation is staying together just to play at a higher grade when both clubs could field individually?The current set-up described by Topper has two clubs from the one parish fielding joint teams at some age groups. I would say that if that is working well and if one (or both) of the clubs couldn't field on their own (without fielding girls or much younger players), they should be allowed to continue unless a clearly better alternative becomes available.
Well they should go and call that amalgamation/clubs in so for a chat and leave the others alone!dont disagree with that at all but what if that amalgamation is staying together just to play at a higher grade when both clubs could field individually?
It is...its already been happening in the City...same would happen in the county eventually.I dont think that really would be an issue
This reminds me so much of late 2009 when Rebel Og was being introduced . City clubs gor railroaded into a system which has killed the game in large parts of the city. The board didnt listen them and it looks like they arent listening now eitherYour meeting with the steering committee appears to have gone along the same lines as our own. Have heard similar from people who represented other amalgamations. Pat Horgan in particular, didn't want to hear anything our members had to say. When it was put to him that perhaps some u10 players would not be physically ready to play u12 and their parents may not want them to, his answer was they'll just have to get on with it.
The Chair of the County board essentially saying "Child protection be damned!"
These lads are sending us back to the dark ages.
absolutelyWell they should go and call that amalgamation/clubs in so for a chat and leave the others alone!
Its like the fella over the road oweing the bank money and they knock on my door.
