nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Stand With Eamon Dunphy

Say Your Number

Haven't listened to much of this so far, but really enjoyed the interview with Damien Duff this week.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Chalk McHugh

trashcan wrote: »

Been saying it for years. An absolute hypocrite who has done more u turns on things than most of us have had hot dinners. In relation to Brady specifically, I well remember a vicious article after Ireland had lost a Euro qualifier at Dalymount 3-2 to Holland having been 2-0 up ( with a young Rudd Gullit pulling the strings) . Dunphy savaged Brady afterwards. A quote that has always stuck in my mind "he is often spoken of as a great player, he is nothing of the kind." Now fast forward to the RTE panel where Dunphy would regularly refer to John and Liam as "great players". Remember him savaging Giles too after Saipan, when he dared to disagree with him over the Roy Keane issue. He said some really nasty things about Giles at the time. Giles proved himself to be the bigger man by even speaking to Dunphy again. Not sure I would have. He was happy to lick the arse of Delaney too while he was in power, which in the scheme of things is a far bigger crime. In Tighes book now he's trying to come across as sceptical about the whole thing. He was one of the few people at the time with the real profile and power to put the boot into Delaney, the way he did to every Irish manager. Not a squeak out of him though. Too busy sucking up to Delaney for Man U tickets.

He really is a nasty little piece of work.

generalgerry

Never knew about those articles about Brady. Given how he speaks about how Liam Brady was "one of the best footballers to play for the country" constantly when introducing him, I found this a bit surprising. But then again, he has done u-turns on just about everything at this stage.

CatFromHue

Higgins5473 wrote: »

and has been and is very critical of Delaney. The opening chapter of Champagne football is a testament to this, its John Giles that should be getting the brunt of this criticism in terms of his association and handouts from that gimp Delaney.

He's only been critical of Delaney when it was completely obvious what was going on. Kieran Cunningham, who was his ghost writer, has said that he used to have conversations with Dunphy where Dunphy would ignore criticism of Delaney.

Higgins5473

CatFromHue wrote: »

He's only been critical of Delaney when it was completely obvious what was going on. Kieran Cunningham, who was his ghost writer, has said that he used to have conversations with Dunphy where Dunphy would ignore criticism of Delaney.

Ignoring criticism of Delaney isn’t exactly something you could hold against any of them during that era? You’d be hung out to dry.

I was probably too kind in my previous post, I think he’s a self serving bollocks who has done well enough

What about Giles though? Giles is the Delaney family’s biggest fan. Our sacred cow not getting a worthy mention?

Tell me how

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Ignoring criticism of Delaney isn’t exactly something you could hold against any of them during that era? You’d be hung out to dry.

I was probably too kind in my previous post, I think he’s a self serving bollocks who has done well enough

What about Giles though? Giles is the Delaney family’s biggest fan. Our sacred cow not getting a worthy mention?

Anything remotely resembling real world evidence in relation to this?

Higgins5473

Tell me how wrote: »

Anything remotely resembling real world evidence in relation to this?

Real world evidence? It’s not even a rumour I’m talking about. You clearly haven’t a breeze about Giles and his role in the FAI with Delaney.
Educate yourself and have a read of Champagne Football as a start. even the opening chapter will do. Himself and Delaney spent years travelling the country together doing FAI nonsense ribbon cutting junkets acting like royalty. They were close friends as well colleagues. He only called for his neck in 2019 when he had no other choice but to.

dr.kenneth noisewater

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Real world evidence? It’s not even a rumour I’m talking about. You clearly haven’t a breeze about Giles and his role in the FAI with Delaney.
Educate yourself and have a read of Champagne Football as a start. even the opening chapter will do. Himself and Delaney spent years travelling the country together doing FAI nonsense ribbon cutting junkets acting like royalty. They were close friends as well colleagues. He only called for his neck in 2019 when he had no other choice but to.

Think thats a bit harsh on Giles, read the book and it seemed to me the Giles had the wool pulled over his eyes for a long time. Some lad sold the idea of the Giles foundation to the FAI while he got nothing and he gave up his time for free to attend events and fundraise for the foundation not the FAI. I think he was just very naive.

Did you smash it

Giles has history with Delaney’s dad. Delaney’s old man was perceived By Giles as a progressive figure within the FAI that was beset with entitled idiots in key positions in the 1950s-70s.

So Giles would be sympathetic to Delaney.

Higgins5473

dr.kenneth noisewater wrote: »

Think thats a bit harsh on Giles, read the book and it seemed to me the Giles had the wool pulled over his eyes for a long time. Some lad sold the idea of the Giles foundation to the FAI while he got nothing and he gave up his time for free to attend events and fundraise for the foundation not the FAI. I think he was just very naive.

Pleading ignorance and naivety at the 11th hour is piss poor. He was around for long enough and close enough to see what Delaney and his crooked aul lad were like, LOI fans shouting from the rooftops about them forever, even turning their backs on the national team because of them. Suitcase full of tickets at USA ‘94? Laughable. The Delaney family dynasty like grip on the FAI was there for everyone to see. Giles was in the middle of it, being wined and dined all over the country for the last 20 years, but he didn’t know anything about anything, just a trustee. What a crock.

But as I said, he’s another one of Ireland’s sacred cows, untouchable. This came about because apparently Dunphy should be criticised for not speaking out about Delaney?

It’s time Giles bowed out permanently for media

Interviewer “so John, what did you think of the Leicesters performance last week?”

Giles “great yeah Joe”

Interviewer “it’s Nathan

Giles “oh, ok Ger. so anyway let me tell ye about the time I forgot my boot laces for a Leeds game I played against Scunthorpe in 1964 blah blah blah”

CatFromHue

The difference is Dunphy spoke up for Delaney, he was on that John The Baptist documentary the Indo did. I'm fairly sure after we got knocked out of Poland 2012 Dunphy spoke very well of Delaney on the show were they were talking about the state of football in Ireland. Even when Tighe's stories about misconduct in the FAI started coming out Dunphy was speaking out about the protests. It was only really when it was becoming completely obvious did Dunphy turn.

Giles did none of this.

Say Your Number

Given that Giles could be talking to one of twenty lads on OTB on a given night, he does a good job of remembering their names.

~Rebel~

vapor trails wrote: »

The one thing about Dunphy I think is that he jumps sides on certain issues. One week he'll advocate for a zero COVID strategy when speaking to Tomas Ryan. Next week he'll be chatting to Jim Power and call small businesses the life blood of the economy and how this has the potential for total economic catastrophe.

Within the context of The Stand, I actually kind of like that. Instead of being adversarial with his guests he basically lets them chat away. Often I find that when they're not met with an argument to get their backs up about, they end up actually softening their own position. So you end up getting more of a nuanced view by the guest instead of the staunch defensive side you hear elsewhere. And then a few days later he'll have a contradictory voice and you get the same approach with the other side.

So as long as you keep an eye on the different sides of interesting subjects, you end up with a more balanced understanding of the two opinions.

I treat The Stand as something to pick and choose within - i'll ignore about 60% of the content, and choose just the subjects that grab me. In fairness to him he gets through some amount of content! I'll almost always ignore the football ones though... they're usually a waste of time, with the same conversations being had elsewhere to a much higher standard.

[Deleted User]

Martin Feeley should be interesting

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Martin Feeley should be interesting

Would be interesting to have him and
Tomás Ryan on at the same time

Feeley came across pretty well - kept his cool.

Always good to have a different perspective.

Fact is that a lot of people don't realise that the % effective immunisation rate of vaccines (if any are approved) could be say 40 to 50%

So that still leaves the world in a broadly similar situation - i.e. still have a worry about giving it to / getting it from others.

Higgins5473

Todays episode (ep. 918), 1 minute 50 seconds in, classic Dunphy.

Klonker

glasso wrote: »

Would be interesting to have him and
Tomás Ryan on at the same time

Feeley came across pretty well - kept his cool.

Always good to have a different perspective.

Fact is that a lot of people don't realise that the % effective immunisation rate of vaccines (if any are approved) could be say 40 to 50%

So that still leaves the world in a broadly similar situation - i.e. still have a worry about giving it to / getting it from others.

I found him very interesting, not the crazy senile doctor he was made out to be when he wrote his article.

I 100% agree this is more a societal issue than a health issue and there needs to be discussion on how many lives prolonged is worth our younger population in particular having to have very restricted social lives compared to all generations before them.

Also very interesting stat that flu is more dangerous to under 35s than covid that I didnt know about, NPHET only like giving the stats that will keep everyone afraid to leave their homes.

[Deleted User]

Klonker wrote: »

I found him very interesting, not the crazy senile doctor he was made out to be when he wrote his article.

I 100% agree this is more a societal issue than a health issue and there needs to be discussion on how many lives prolonged is worth our younger population in particular having to have very restricted social lives compared to all generations before them.

Also very interesting stat that flu is more dangerous to under 35s than covid that I didnt know about, NPHET only like giving the stats that will keep everyone afraid to leave their homes.

yes but there are more persisting effects apparent with Covid than the flu - long-term fatigue etc. it's not just about fatality.

Besides that is very much a cherry-picking fact. Covid kills a higher % than the flu - that's not in doubt.

are there a lot of under 35's out there with no older close family who they plan on keeping in contact with? not a lot I would say.

I thought it was good for Dungphy to finally have another voice on but shouldn't mean that people go about picking out points that mean little in the overall picture.

Klonker

glasso wrote: »

yes but there are more persisting effects apparent with Covid than the flu - long-term fatigue etc. it's not just about fatality.

Besides that is very much a cherry-picking fact. Covid kills a higher % than the flu - that's not in doubt.

are there a lot of under 35's out there with no older close family who they plan on keeping in contact with? not a lot I would say.

I thought it was good for Dungphy to finally have another voice on but shouldn't mean that people go about picking out points that mean little in the overall picture.

I was cherry picking, my point is that these are points that are never part of the discussion when the likes of Tomas Ryan are on The Stand or whenever Tony Holohan has a press conference, only the most negative facts are presented, we are never given the full details and discuss it all rationally as a nation.

I absolutely agree with you and disagree with Martin about how is it possible to let it spread wild among the healthy and protect the vulnerable at the same time, its makes sense in theory but just not in any way possible. But it's no more impossible than zero covid that gets loads of airtime through Ryan, McConkey and others.

As for long covid, this is being hugely overplayed, especially when deaths were so low and they needed something else to scare people into line.

It's just nice to hear another idea which adds balance to the overall discussion.

[Deleted User]

Klonker wrote: »

I was cherry picking, my point is that these are points that are never part of the discussion when the likes of Tomas Ryan are on The Stand or whenever Tony Holohan has a press conference, only the most negative facts are presented, we are never given the full details and discuss it all rationally as a nation.

I absolutely agree with you and disagree with Martin about how is it possible to let it spread wild among the healthy and protect the vulnerable at the same time, its makes sense in theory but just not in any way possible. But it's no more impossible than zero covid that gets loads of airtime through Ryan, McConkey and others.

As for long covid, this is being hugely overplayed, especially when deaths were so low and they needed something else to scare people into line.

It's just nice to hear another idea which adds balance to the overall discussion.

it's not known currently with precision what % of those who get Covid are likely to end up with Long Covid effects but I personally know someone (formerly very fit and healthy and only got very mild Covid symptoms initially) who is still buckled with fatigue over 6 months later. pretty big effect on life tbh

Banana Republic 1

Klonker wrote: »

I was cherry picking, my point is that these are points that are never part of the discussion when the likes of Tomas Ryan are on The Stand or whenever Tony Holohan has a press conference, only the most negative facts are presented, we are never given the full details and discuss it all rationally as a nation.

I absolutely agree with you and disagree with Martin about how is it possible to let it spread wild among the healthy and protect the vulnerable at the same time, its makes sense in theory but just not in any way possible. But it's no more impossible than zero covid that gets loads of airtime through Ryan, McConkey and others.

As for long covid, this is being hugely overplayed, especially when deaths were so low and they needed something else to scare people into line.

It's just nice to hear another idea which adds balance to the overall discussion.

In the last episode Tomas Ryan did Dunphy cut him up with point that the unionists in the North would never sign up to an all Ireland policy, Ryan seemed to take this like an upper cut to the extent he may not come on as often. I also felt Ryan started to sound like Stephan Donnelly in the sense that he was chronology telling us what has happened rather then giving any actual insight.

Obrieski

Higgins5473 wrote: »

Todays episode (ep. 918), 1 minute 50 seconds in, classic Dunphy.

Did I miss something? Went back and listened to it a couple of times?

Obrieski

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

In the last episode Tomas Ryan did, Dunphy cut him up with point that the unionists in the North would never sign up to an all Ireland policy, Ryan seemed to take this like an upper cut to the extent he may not come on as often. I also felt Ryan started to sound like Stephen Donnelly in the sense that he was chronology telling us what has happened rather then giving any actual insight.

I am no expert, but is this not the crux of the matter in the Zero-COVID argument - the fact we share a land border with Northern Ireland (& the UK) and that we could do everything such as close our airports, ports etc but the fact would remain that a person from England could fly into Belfast and cross the border into the Republic at their leisure? Dunphy has spent the lat 2 years talking about the complexities of this border for Brexit, it doesn't change just because of a pandemic!

Whilst using Australia and NZ as a comparison is easy to do, it is not comparing like with like. These are both countries miles out by themselves with no such border issues, or close neighbours. I have friends in Melbourne who have hardly left their apartments in the past 7 months as the lockdown was very strict there, but the fact remains that borders between states were closed which was possible to do there...but not so easy here. They have begun to open up again in the past week or so, it will be interesting to see if there is a spike there too.

Dillonb3

Obrieski wrote: »

Did I miss something? Went back and listened to it a couple of times?

I listened to it this morning but looks like they corrected it; when Eamon tried to introduce Brian MacDonald he got flustered/confused reading the introduction and could be heard saying "Lads can you edit this out"

Banana Republic 1

Dillonb3 wrote: »

I listened to it this morning but looks like they corrected it; when Eamon tried to introduce Brian MacDonald he got flustered/confused reading the introduction and could be heard saying "Lads can you edit this out"

I listened to it at around 5 am and he also said "**** sake Eamon get a hold of yourself but they must have edited that bit out if others did not hear it.

Beechwoodspark

Why does he persist with McDonald ??

vapor trails

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Why does he persist with McDonald??

I'm not into him either. I just can't get away from RT as being a Russian propaganda rag. He's not an absolute Russian drone, but he is subtly defensive on nearly every topic when it comes to the Russian point of view. He kind of reminds me of a pokey salesman selling me **** car or something.

[Deleted User]

vapor trails wrote: »

I'm not into him either. I just can't get away from RT as being a Russian propaganda rag. He's not an absolute Russian drone, but he is subtly defensive on nearly every topic when it comes to the Russian point of view. He kind of reminds me of a pokey salesman selling me **** car or something.

interesting for the Russian perspective of the West if anything else re Merkel, actually preferring Biden to get some deals done because Trump can't get anything re Russia through etc.

~Rebel~

vapor trails wrote: »

I'm not into him either. I just can't get away from RT as being a Russian propaganda rag. He's not an absolute Russian drone, but he is subtly defensive on nearly every topic when it comes to the Russian point of view. He kind of reminds me of a pokey salesman selling me **** car or something.

That in itself is sort of interesting to listen to though - as long as you're aware of it.

When I listen to him I always imagine there's a lad from the Kremlin sitting in the same room, his weapon holstered, but visible, giving almost imperceptible little nods or shakes of the head.

paleoperson

vapor trails wrote: »

I'm not into him either. I just can't get away from RT as being a Russian propaganda rag. He's not an absolute Russian drone, but he is subtly defensive on nearly every topic when it comes to the Russian point of view. He kind of reminds me of a pokey salesman selling me **** car or something.

RT has proven themselves over time to be a lot more reliable and accurate as a news source than their counterparts in the west.

Dillonb3

I don't mind Brian MacDonald on the podcast; He does offer an analysis from the Eastern European point of view on European and World Matters involving Russia. Its down to yourself on what's propaganda and what's true