Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Off The Ball Official Thread <Mod Note - Post #1, #533, #6651>

Options
1…215216218220221…334

Comments

  • Options
    #6512
    monstermag
    Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭monstermag


    I'm not quite sure why journalist's in general are reluctant to talk/write about this huge Ronaldo story, obviously l know of the legal restraints but it didn't stop them commenting on the Belfast rugby trial and they went into overdrive reporting on the allegations against judge Kavanaugh in the states. Personally l think legal matters are off limits but something tells me they are holding off because of Ronaldos status in the game. I'm not having a go at OTB here l just find it peculiar that it seems like it's been brushed under the carpet.


  • Options
    #6513
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    I thought the Belfast trial didn't get much air time until it was over.

    Joe mentioned the Ronaldo case today but in the context of it's limited to what they can talk about. I don't think it's anything to do with his status in the game.


  • Options
    #6514
    monstermag
    Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭monstermag


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I thought the Belfast trial didn't get much air time until it was over.

    Joe mentioned the Ronaldo case today but in the context of it's limited to what they can talk about. I don't think it's anything to do with his status in the game.

    I caught the end of the paper review, it was the journalist he had in that brought up Ronaldo not Joe, I didn't catch his name, he was also surprised by the lack of coverage the story is getting.


  • Options
    #6515
    diusmr8a504cvk
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,959 ✭✭✭diusmr8a504cvk


    Always thoroughly enjoy the newspaper headlines and the discussion afterwards, it's kind of a 'too long; don't read' of the world of sport. Enjoyed their interview with Patrick McEleney.


  • Options
    #6516
    djemba djemba
    Registered Users Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭djemba djemba


    Has the hard shoulder been extended tonight. Talking about and playing clips of Donald trump news conference during the newsround on off the ball


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6517
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    djemba djemba wrote: »
    Has the hard shoulder been extended tonight. Talking about and playing clips of Donald trump news conference during the newsround on off the ball

    What was the context? (There is always a context).


  • Options
    #6518
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    anthonyjmaher wrote: »
    It turned out that Off The Ball backed the wrong horse. And they have pretty much buried the story since them. Pretty pathetic tbh. They should have fully apologised live on air to the Mayo management.

    Cora Staunton on at the moment discussing the events.
    Not sure you were right about backing the wrong horse.

    Difference of opinion continues to be the most likely reality.

    Interesting that this is on on the day Peter Leahy's contract was extended.


  • Options
    #6519
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users Posts: 15,407 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    Cora not telling the whole story here


  • Options
    #6520
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    Beechwoodspark wrote: »
    Cora not telling the whole story here

    Won't matter. They're basically her PR handlers at this stage.


  • Options
    #6521
    anthonyjmaher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭anthonyjmaher


    She plays the poor mouth better than she plays football. The way she left the "player welfare" phrase dangle out there without any qualification made people think that Leahy may have been abusing one of the girls. This was shameful. She could easily have qualified what exactly the nature of those player welfare issues were with having to name any of the other girls if they were really her concern.

    And why did she need to do the interview on the same day that Peter Leahy was ratified for another two years. Coincidence or her trying to get her final word in spite of the decision of the county board?

    I'd say Woolly is on the blower to Peter Leahy again now.lol


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6522
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Patww79 wrote: »
    Won't matter. They're basically her PR handlers at this stage.

    Well I can see you are maintaining an objective position.

    Cora pointed out that the LGFA had not contacted several players including the captain to get their side of the story since this started.
    The LGFA confirmed that they had not done so yet. Makes it more interesting about Peter's contract being extended.

    Sad to hear Cora pointing out that some relationships which she had had with girls over several years have broken down completely.

    anthonyjmaher wrote: »
    She plays the poor mouth better than she plays football. The way she left the "player welfare" phrase dangle out there without any qualification made people think that Leahy may have been abusing one of the girls. This was shameful. She could easily have qualified what exactly the nature of those player welfare issues were with having to name any of the other girls if they were really her concern.

    And why did she need to do the interview on the same day that Peter Leahy was ratified for another two years. Coincidence or her trying to get her final word in spite of the decision of the county board?

    I'd say Woolly is on the blower to Peter Leahy again now.lol

    Pretty sure this interview was schedule before Peter's announcement. It could just as easily be suggested that the LGFA announced his contract extension because they heard she was going to be on air.

    She did qualify the nature of the welfare issues. She said it affected girls mental health significantly. She said that it was not her place to put the root cause of this in to the public domain which could be understandable also.


  • Options
    #6523
    deisedude
    Registered Users Posts: 4,843 ✭✭✭deisedude


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Well I can see you are maintaining an objective position.

    Cora pointed out that the LGFA had not contacted several players including the captain to get their side of the story since this started.
    The LGFA confirmed that they had not done so yet. Makes it more interesting about Peter's contract being extended.

    Sad to hear Cora pointing out that some relationships which she had had with girls over several years have broken down completely.




    Pretty sure this interview was schedule before Peter's announcement. It could just as easily be suggested that the LGFA announced his contract extension because they heard she was going to be on air.

    She did qualify the nature of the welfare issues. She said it affected girls mental health significantly. She said that it was not her place to put the root cause of this in to the public domain which could be understandable also.

    It sounded like a load of bollox. Don't believe a word of it


  • Options
    #6524
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    I have to say I didn't buy it either.


  • Options
    #6525
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    deisedude wrote: »
    It sounded like a load of bollox. Don't believe a word of it
    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I have to say I didn't buy it either.


    Why's that? Genuinely curious.


  • Options
    #6526
    Imhof Tank
    Registered Users Posts: 2,122 ✭✭✭Imhof Tank


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Why's that? Genuinely curious.

    Please! You are no more "genuinely curious"

    You know well what the majority view of this forum is on OTB on this particular subject, and the reasons for that. You are just looking for an excuse to defend your mates on the show now.


  • Options
    #6527
    Imhof Tank
    Registered Users Posts: 2,122 ✭✭✭Imhof Tank


    In defense of the show, there was a Gilesey nugget there tonight when a text about Bobby Moore set him off reminiscing about "the 3 against the 6" match in '73 at Wembly when a combined team from EEC accession states Ireland, UK and Denmark played a combination team of Benelux, West Germany, France and Italy. The one time John played with Moore.

    Certainly never heard of that one before, great trivia material.


  • Options
    #6528
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Imhof Tank wrote: »
    Please! You are no more "genuinely curious"

    You know well what the majority view of this forum is on OTB on this particular subject, and the reasons for that. You are just looking for an excuse to defend your mates on the show now.

    Well explained. The majority view.

    Is that how it goes? "What's everyone else saying?" "I'll go with that". So much for original thought.

    "My mates on the show....... " yeah, I'm solely responsible for their increased listenership.
    At least when I have a view I can defend it.


  • Options
    #6529
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Why's that? Genuinely curious.

    It didn't add up for me that she was very happy to talk about the affect of the situation on some of the players and the failings of certain bodies in dealing with the situation but not what caused it.


  • Options
    #6530
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    It didn't add up for me that she was very happy to talk about the affect of the situation on some of the players and the failings of certain bodies in dealing with the situation but not what caused it.

    Is it not reasonable that her club colleagues felt they were suffering as a result of they were bring treated and so when they decided they were going to leave, she did too in support of them. As it was not her issue, she is not putting whatever was the issue in to the public domain.

    When she didn't say anything she was accused of being silent. Now when she explains further the logic as she experienced the events, it's discounted as well.
    It was said here previously that she was out out because she felt Peter Leahy ignored her as she was in Australia. Turns out that they were in constant communication with what sounds like a fairly comfortable relationship.


  • Options
    #6531
    anthonyjmaher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭anthonyjmaher


    Tell me how wrote: »
    She did qualify the nature of the welfare issues. She said it affected girls mental health significantly.


    She never said that at the time. She said nothing about mental health, she just threw the "player welfare" and "unsafe" phrases out there, which in the light of all this #metoo stuff left Peter Leahy open to all sorts of accusations. It was only when Leahy did the interview with Woolly that he forced them to state their grievances. Grievances which were really just run of the mill football team issues i.e. "I should be playing", "The manager told me I wasn't fit enough", "I don't like the manager's training". Nothing at all that deserved to be labelled as creating an "unsafe" environment.



    All she needed to do was to apologise for what she said, for overstating her position. But she really is leaving a mess behind her now as she jets off to Australia again. And it doesn't seem like she wants to take any responsibility for her actions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6532
    Jayesdiem
    Registered Users Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Jayesdiem


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Well I can see you are maintaining an objective position.

    Cora pointed out that the LGFA had not contacted several players including the captain to get their side of the story since this started.
    The LGFA confirmed that they had not done so yet. Makes it more interesting about Peter's contract being extended.

    Sad to hear Cora pointing out that some relationships which she had had with girls over several years have broken down completely.




    Pretty sure this interview was schedule before Peter's announcement. It could just as easily be suggested that the LGFA announced his contract extension because they heard she was going to be on air.

    She did qualify the nature of the welfare issues. She said it affected girls mental health significantly. She said that it was not her place to put the root cause of this in to the public domain which could be understandable also.

    Stop it now. Jesus Christ. You must be connected with that show. You must be.


  • Options
    #6533
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    anthonyjmaher wrote: »
    She never said that at the time. She said nothing about mental health, she just threw the "player welfare" and "unsafe" phrases out there, which in the light of all this #metoo stuff left Peter Leahy open to all sorts of accusations. It was only when Leahy did the interview with Woolly that he forced them to state their grievances. Grievances which were really just run of the mill football team issues i.e. "I should be playing", "The manager told me I wasn't fit enough", "I don't like the manager's training". Nothing at all that deserved to be labelled as creating an "unsafe" environment.


    All she needed to do was to apologise for what she said, for overstating her position. But she really is leaving a mess behind her now as she jets off to Australia again. And it doesn't seem like she wants to take any responsibility for her actions.

    How is it you're taking Peters words at face value but not Cora's?
    I've said on this thread previously that both sides are off the mark on this but this she must apologize or the show must apologize has no basis in what's being reported.
    Jayesdiem wrote: »
    Stop it now. Jesus Christ. You must be connected with that show. You must be.

    FFS. Can you challenge my point or if not just put me on ignore. I've nothing to do with the show. Or else just start adding in "fake news" and "biased mainstream media" and complete the stereotype.


  • Options
    #6534
    deisedude
    Registered Users Posts: 4,843 ✭✭✭deisedude


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Why's that? Genuinely curious.

    If she stated some facts or examples instead of playing the "mental health" card maybe I might believe her.

    By the way I don't mean to demean mental health as I do think its a genuine epidemic in this country but in this instance I think its being thrown out there with nothing to back it up other than they didn't like his autocratic management style


  • Options
    #6535
    anthonyjmaher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,022 ✭✭✭anthonyjmaher


    Tell me how wrote: »
    How is it you're taking Peters words at face value but not Cora's?


    I think Peter is vindicated by the testimonials of the girls. What was described as "unsafe" was essentially just usual team squabbles that would be the run of the mill stuff on all sports. And remember in his interview, he was also standing in defence of his backroom staff. The accusation of things being "unsafe" brought the reputations of all the backroom team, including medical people, in to question. None of those people would have stood by him if they were not happy with his treatment of the players.



    Lastly, I think there is no way on earth that the Mayo County Board would have given him the job again for two years if they thought there was any truth to the accusation of the situation being "unsafe".


  • Options
    #6536
    ghostdancer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,539 ✭✭✭ghostdancer


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Why's that? Genuinely curious.

    I don't believe it because I heard the reasons for it from someone with direct knowledge of the events, and posted about it before the Staunton OTB/Leahy Wooly interviews:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107997976&postcount=6112

    that Leahy subsequently came out and pretty much confirmed that version leaves little doubt in my mind that it's much closer to that than Staunton's continuous vague assertions that she won't qualify. The county board, the majority of players, and the majority of staff have stuck with Leahy rather than the star player (and her clubmates), which speaks volumes too IMO.


  • Options
    #6537
    Tell me how
    Registered Users Posts: 21,524 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    deisedude wrote: »
    If she stated some facts or examples instead of playing the "mental health" card maybe I might believe her.

    By the way I don't mean to demean mental health as I do think its a genuine epidemic in this country but in this instance I think its being thrown out there with nothing to back it up other than they didn't like his autocratic management style

    I agree that it is a mess without specific examples.
    It must be a very difficult environment that all of them are now in I would bet the mental health of many involved (on all sides) has suffered as a result of the way this has played out and that they know the easy thing to do would be to say they were putting it behind them without saying they were wrong but because they aren't doing that, I'm curious why.
    anthonyjmaher wrote: »
    I think Peter is vindicated by the testimonials of the girls. What was described as "unsafe" was essentially just usual team squabbles that would be the run of the mill stuff on all sports. And remember in his interview, he was also standing in defence of his backroom staff. The accusation of things being "unsafe" brought the reputations of all the backroom team, including medical people, in to question. None of those people would have stood by him if they were not happy with his treatment of the players.

    Lastly, I think there is no way on earth that the Mayo County Board would have given him the job again for two years if they thought there was any truth to the accusation of the situation being "unsafe".

    Didn't some of his backroom staff walk also though?
    Him getting the job again is an indictment of the county board support but the girsl are stating that the county board hasn't engaged with the players who left and so they feel their stories haven't been fully heard.

    I would agree that the county board extending his role is a very strong vote of confidence alright but it could be said that they have to support him now given that they did in the summer.
    Also, they haven't covered themselves in glory. They released a statement the morning after the girls press conference without having seen the press conference.
    ghostdancer wrote: »
    I don't believe it because I heard the reasons for it from someone with direct knowledge of the events, and posted about it before the Staunton OTB/Leahy Wooly interviews:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107997976&postcount=6112

    that Leahy subsequently came out and pretty much confirmed that version leaves little doubt in my mind that it's much closer to that than Staunton's continuous vague assertions that she won't qualify. The county board, the majority of players, and the majority of staff have stuck with Leahy rather than the star player (and her clubmates), which speaks volumes too IMO.

    No disrespect to your contact but are you sure they were entirely objective? Given the way this has played out, I wouldn't be sure of a story I was told being true if it came from someone associated with one side or the other.

    But I do think if the 'true version' of events is known in the wider Mayo area and that the girls are entirely unjustified that words from family or friends would have convinced them by now to step back. They are fighting a very lonely fight it seems, afraid of having to apologise seems a weak reason to continue this. Maybe that is the only reason, maybe there is more.


  • Options
    #6538
    Utopia Parkway
    Registered Users Posts: 17,335 ✭✭✭✭Utopia Parkway


    anthonyjmaher wrote: »
    She never said that at the time. She said nothing about mental health, she just threw the "player welfare" and "unsafe" phrases out there, which in the light of all this #metoo stuff left Peter Leahy open to all sorts of accusations. It was only when Leahy did the interview with Woolly that he forced them to state their grievances. Grievances which were really just run of the mill football team issues i.e. "I should be playing", "The manager told me I wasn't fit enough", "I don't like the manager's training". Nothing at all that deserved to be labelled as creating an "unsafe" environment.

    That's why I find it very hard to believe a word out of her. When they raised the issue of an "unsafe environment" around Leahy's management it allowed rumours to fester of a sexual nature. They were rife in Mayo and even beyond Mayo. They would have heard those rumours like anyone else but they were happy to leave them out there rather than clarify the situation. That is absolutely scurrilous behavior. It was only when Leahy was forced to defend himself in public that they backtracked a little.


  • Options
    #6539
    Muscles Schultz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 302 ✭✭Muscles Schultz


    Who’s that pox on the show taking about markets and odds all the time?


  • Options
    #6540
    For Forks Sake
    Registered Users Posts: 11,525 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    Muscles Schultz wrote: »
    Who’s that pox on the show taking about markets and odds all the time?

    Leon Blanche from Boylesports. Permanent fixture around the place in spite of the regular OTB 'evils of gambling' preaching :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6541
    Diabhal Beag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,238 ✭✭✭✭Diabhal Beag


    Actually happened to tune in for that particular segment and they gave the most half-hearted disclaimer beforehand to the point where my mate was in tears laughing. It's obviously procedure and required for all betting-related discussion/advertisement but it makes Off the Ball look like such hypocrites with there better than thou approach.

    However the Second Captains lads coverage of horse-racing back in the day was nearly entirely betting related too.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement