Second Captains

Beersmith wrote: »

Those 3 had nothing to do with the loan system. Chelsea manager didn't fancy them.

Its a lot easier to fancy a player if you see them play regularly though. As good as a loan can be, making an impact at your parent club, even in training, I find would leave you in a better position than having a stormer on loan as all 3 above did.

Loans means nothing to a manager who isn't benefiting directly from your play at all, management is far too short-term these days for these long-term loan strategies.

I'm not sure I've ever had a good word to say about Marcotti, but I'll grudgingly admit to not finding him so bad this time around.

Say Your Number wrote: »

What's the story with this perceived Anti-Cork bias, what the f*ck is wrong with them down there?

They're convinced no-one else likes them. There's a reason for that. It's true.

dulux99 wrote: »

I know everyone seems to be of the same opinion but I can't echo this enough. He is the most unlikeable person I've ever heard on a sports podcast and I listen to my fair share of them

Two words, Graham Hunter.

You can put those pitchforks away, Tom Humphries is a subject today.

Turns out it's hard to talk about ongoing courtcases!

Glad Ken called him what he is. A convicted pedophile.

riemann wrote:

Think I'll skip this one, might make for uncomfortable listening. No matter how serious the subject matter, how it makes me feel is the most important thing.

riemann wrote:

So difficult, explains why no one has heard of this case since the initial charge in 2011 and conviction several weeks ago.

Maybe people didn't want to hear about it because it made them uncomfortable.

HelloMuddha wrote: »

Has there been any mention of the David Walsh letter for Tom Humphries this week? I think I've listened to everything but do fall asleep on the train on occasion.

Would be disappointed if they don't deal with it. I signed up at the start with the hope that the lads would branch out a bit more into journalism, its got the price point spot on to be honest, I won't unsubscribe but the output is very mixed.

I think I was the first one on the thread to mention the Tom Humphries case. It can be noted that I referenced it not attempting to incite a mob brandishing pitchforks but more with reference to David Walsh's character reference.

I've to listen back to the piece, I was initially quite disappointed with the conversation about it, but initial reaction; The discussion was completely dominated by Ken, and with Eoin trying to act as the facilitator you're left with Murph not really offering a huge amount to the discussion. Ken's point of view seemed to accept that character references have a place just that it was poor judgement by both Walsh and Cusack to provide them. I personally would fundamentally disagree, they've no place in such a case. Simples. Too open to abuse by the (eh) great and the good in society. This is a recurring problem, Ken just going on long monologues and talking to himself without really being challenged.

Considering they've had weeks to pull together a piece on it I'll remain disappointed in the coverage of it. There are many strands to the story that could be explored, it's not the first time a high-profile GAA personality has given such a reference in such a case for example.

Might have more considered thoughts to provide on a re-listen, I'll shout them at people on the train tomorrow if no one hear wants to listen

HelloMuddha wrote: »

I think I was the first one on the thread to mention the Tom Humphries case. It can be noted that I referenced it not attempting to incite a mob brandishing pitchforks but more with reference to David Walsh's character reference.

I've to listen back to the piece, I was initially quite disappointed with the conversation about it, but initial reaction; The discussion was completely dominated by Ken, and with Eoin trying to act as the facilitator you're left with Murph not really offering a huge amount to the discussion. Ken's point of view seemed to accept that character references have a place just that it was poor judgement by both Walsh and Cusack to provide them. I personally would fundamentally disagree, they've no place in such a case. Simples. Too open to abuse by the (eh) great and the good in society. This is a recurring problem, Ken just going on long monologues and talking to himself without really being challenged.

Considering they've had weeks to pull together a piece on it I'll remain disappointed in the coverage of it. There are many strands to the story that could be explored, it's not the first time a high-profile GAA personality has given such a reference in such a case for example.

Might have more considered thoughts to provide on a re-listen, I'll shout them at people on the train tomorrow if no one hear wants to listen

I don't agree, any accused convicted of an offence is entitled to put a character reference before the Court. If you don't agree with that then you can argue that it should be abolished but while it exists then humphries was entitled to do it.

It's not open only to the great and good in society. It's a means through which a barrister running a plea in mitigation can set out the background to an offenders life through a written narrative. A serial offender with 10 previous convictions for theft can have a character reference before the court from an employer or a charity were he or she volunteers etc. It's only a very minor feature of the process.

The problem with Walsh IMO is

1. The reference refers to the GAA etc even though that's how he found and groomed the victim

2. The radio interview he gave where he said I know tom and I know more about this case than anyone and he's a fine man. That's utterly disgraceful. I can't imagine how's I'd feel listening to that on the radio if I was the victim or her parents. He deserves to lose his job for that.

3. His arrogance that he is "bruised" now by the criticism even though he's refused to answer questions in a same way he'd destroy a cyclist if the shoe was on the other foot

I believe there is an element of restraint needed in exploring the strands of the case as well - for the sake of the victim rather than anyone else. They had to live through the details of the ordeal twice, and now the media is looking into it, they have to relive the details again. Thankfully, there does seem to be restraint in going into every detail.

I disagree the piece was dominated by Ken - a lot of Eoin's words stuck with me.

And on your second last note, about other people from the GAA offer references - i thought this was one element they covered well - GAA personalities sticking their oar in on cases they dont have the full details on.

Ken is definitely the strongest thing about the podcast. Can't imagine many people would pay the sub for Eoin and Murph although I do enjoy both of them.

Does anyone know when Ken had that interview with Roy Keane where he called him out on Saipan? It's in the audio mash up. Is it available anywhere?

riemann wrote: »

So difficult, explains why no one has heard of this case since the initial charge in 2011 and conviction several weeks ago.

There was no discussion from when he was charged to when he pleaded guilty as there were reporting restrictions in place.