Reported today that the family are looking at a bill in excess of $1,000,000 for his hospital care.
i assume the great gga communtiy will stand behind this poor lad. How many arrests have being made at this point- there must have been a shitload of witnesses
No arrests so far. The yanks wonât open their mouths.
it was a GGA game mate- doubt regular folk would play it
:rolleyes:
96-week ban is too lenient, says McGovernâs club
16 August 2011
The Ulster club in San Francisco believe the 96-week suspension handed down to Mark McGovernâs assailant is too lenient.
Patrick Power was issued with the suspension for his assault on the Fermanagh native during a San Francisco SFC game seven weeks ago. McGovern was knocked unconscious and only awoke from a coma in the past fortnight.
Speaking to the Irish Examiner, Ulster club chairman Joe Duffy blasted: "It doesnât seem fair.
"There have been a couple of cases where an official has been injured in games and itâs led to life bans. Mark has a brain injury, we donât know the long-term consequences, he nearly died and yet they only give this guy a ban of less than two years. It makes no sense to me.
"Thereâs no equity. Markâs medical bills are over a million dollars and thatâs no exaggeration. His family are over from Ireland. The whole thing has been awful.
âAt the end of the day, Mark is improving. We can be grateful for that.â
However, San Francisco Competitions Control Committee chairman Eammon Gormley has defended the decision.
âBoth clubs co-operated fully and we were fully satisfied about the investigation. It was the maximum penalty and we believe that it was a fair outcome,â he said.
Didnât know they had identified the attacker, are criminal charges likely to be brought?
I wasnât aware of this either.
Not sure what is happening as regards the law, youâd imagine if the GGA were able to hand down a ban someone must have seen what happened.
Thatâs nuts. Whoâs going to help them? Surely Croke Park and the Fermanagh county board will have to do something.
wtf are the GGA up to here - the assailant should be facing a lifetime in alkatraz ? if they knew who done they should be telling the SFPD. Also the two clubs should be fucked out of the GGA for the cloak of silence
sickining shit from the bigots here-inexplicably lenient ban- as far as Im concerned cooney is obstructing justice here & should be on the FBIs ten most wanted
fairly shocking there was enough evidence to hand out a joke of a ban but the cops have no witnesses. its a fucking disgrace that people havent come forward. the cops should seize the submissions to the disclipinary body and start prosecuting the people who made statements to the gaa, but the cops, for obstruction of justice
its the GGA way im afraid mate
:lol:
alcatraz is a tourist site these days mate. san quentin wouldnt be all that far off though.
unfortunately some of the ulster club supporters who saw the incident may be unable to come forward as they are illegal immigrants. the opposing side the celts are irish americans pretty much and wouldnt have any such concerns.
in the absence of facts its hard to know what happened. hits off the ball happen in a lot of sports every weekend, ruggerby they try and blind players and stamp on them, soccer - break lads legs, gaa - assaults with the fists generally. likely that it wasnt pre meditated and for all we know there was two players at it. Dont know why the Ulster club dont publicly state the version of events that their members witnessed. Blaming the local GAA seems a cop out imo. Surely there were two umpires that may have seen it. The umpires tend to come from neutral clubs out there and its sickening if they witnessed it and didnt come forward.
What did the local GAA charge the player with to get a 96 week ban?
PMSL
Reports that police in the US arrested the attacker of Mark McGovern, but have released him again without charge due to lack of evidence.
Nice article here from Jonathan Wilson on what it means to follow a football team and his relationship with his father. Anyone who follows any decent football journalists will have seen it already but itâs worth posting for those who havenât seen it.
http://sbinfoplus.tumblr.com/post/10591675771/exclusive-jonathan-wilson
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2012/01/newspapers-paywalls-and-core-users/
Newspapers, Paywalls, and Core Users
This may be the year where newspapers finally drop the idea of treating all news as a product, and all readers as customers.
One early sign of this shift was the 2010 launch of paywalls for the London Times and Sunday Times. These involved no new strategy; however, the newspaper world was finally willing to regard them as real test of whether general-interest papers could induce a critical mass of readers to pay. (Nope[/url].) Then, in March, the New York [i]Times[/i] introduced a charge for readers who crossed a certain threshold of article views (a pattern copied from the financial press, and especially the [i]Financial Times[/i].) Finally, and most recently, were a pair of announcements last month: The Chicago [i]Sun-Times[/i] was [url=âhttp://www.suntimes.com/9284143-417/sun-times-media-online-sites-to-begin-metered-pay-plan.htmlâ]adopting a new threshold charge[/url], and the Minneapolis [i]Star-Tribune[/i] said that [url=âhttp://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/money/star-tribune-unveils-20-article-paywall-nov-1-2011â]their existing one was working well. Taken together, these events are a blow to the idea that online news can be treated as a simple product for sale, as the physical newspaper was.
For some time now, newspaper people have been insisting, sometimes angrily, that we readers will soon have to pay for content (an assertion that had already appeared, in just that form[/url], by 1996.) During that same period, freely available content grew ten-thousand-fold, while buyers didnât. In fact, [url=âhttp://www.paulgraham.com/publishing.htmlâ]as Paul Graham has pointed out, âConsumers never really were paying for content, and publishers werenât really selling it eitherâŚAlmost every form of publishing has been organized as if the medium was what they were selling, and the content was irrelevant.â
Commercial radio is ad-supported because no one could figure out a way to restrict access to radio waves; cable TV collects revenues because someone figured out a way to restrict access to co-axial cables. The logic of the internet is that everyone pays for the infrastructure, then everyone gets to use it. This is obviously incompatible with print economics, but oddly, the industryâs faith in âevery reader a customerâ has been largely unshaken by newspapersâ own lived experience of the move to the web.
A printed paper was a bundle. A reader who wanted only sports and stock tables bought the same paper as a reader who wanted local and national politics, or recipes and horoscopes. Online, though, that bundle is torn apart, every day, by users who forward each other individual URLs, without regard to front pages or named sections or intended navigation. This unbundling leads to the odd math of web readership â if you rank readers by pages viewed in a month, the largest group by far, between a third and half of them, will visit only a single page. A smaller group will read two pages in a month, a still smaller group will read three, and so on, up to the most active reader, in a group by herself, who will read dozens of pages a day, hundreds in a month.
Against this hugely variable audience behavior, a paywall was all-or-nothing: âIf you wonât give us any money, we wonât show you any ads!â Offered this all-or-nothing choice, most readers opted for ânothingâ; the day they launched their paywall, the Times of London shrank its digital audience from a large multiple of its print circulation to a small fraction of it. This isnât a problem with general-interest paywalls â it is the problem, widely understood before the turn of the century, and one to which there has never been a convincing answer. The easy part of treating digital news as a product is getting money from 2% of your audience. The hard part is losing 98% of your advertising base.
To understand newspapersâ 15-year attachment to paywalls, you have to understand âEveryone must pay!â not just as an economic assertion, but as a cultural one. Though the journalists all knew readership would plummet if their paper dropped imported content like Dear Abby or the funny pages, they never really had to know just how few people were reading about the City Council or the water main break. Part of the appeal of paywalls, even in the face of their economic ineffectiveness, was preserving this sense that a coupon-clipper and a news junkie were both just customers, people whose motivations the paper could serve in general, without having to understand in particular.
The article threshold has often been discussed as if it was simply a new method of getting readers to pay, to which the reply has to be âYes, except for most of them.â Calling article thresholds a âleakyâ or âporousâ paywall understates the enormity of the change; the metaphor of a leak suggests a mostly intact container that lets out a minority of its contents, but a paper that shares even two pages a month frees a majority of users from any fee at all. By the time the threshold is at 20 pages (a number fast becoming customary) a paper has given up on even trying to charge between 85% and 95% of its readers, and it will only convince a minority of that minority to pay.
Newspapers have two principal sources of revenue, readers and advertisers, and they can operate at mass or niche scale for each of those groups. A metro-area daily paper is a mass product for customers (many readers buy the paper) and for advertisers (many readers see their ads.) Newsletters and small-circulation magazines, by contrast, serve niche readers, and therefore niche advertisers â Fire Chief[/url][/i], [i][url=âhttp://www.motherearthnews.com/â]Mother Earth News[/url][/i]. (Some newsletters get by with no advertising at all, as with [i][url=âhttp://www.cooksillustrated.com/â]Cooksâ Illustrated, where part of what the user pays for is freedom from ads, or rather freedom from a publisher beholden to advertisers.)
Paywalls were an attempt to preserve the old mass+mass model after a transition to digital distribution. With so few readers willing to pay, and therefore so few readers to advertise to, paywalls instead turned newspapers into a niche+niche business. What the article threshold creates is an odd hybrid â a mass market for advertising, but a niche market for users. As David Cohn has pointed out, this is the commercial equivalent of the National Public Radio model, where sponsors reach all listeners, but direct suport only comes from donors. (Lest NPR seem like small ball, itâs worth noting that the Times â has convinced something like one out of every hundred of its online readers to pay, while NPR affiliatesâ success rate is something like one in twelve. Newspapers with thresholds now aspire to NPRâs persuasiveness.) Paywalls encourage a paper to focus on getting content out. Thresholds force them to focus on getting users in.
Threshold charges subject the logic of the print bundle â a bit of everything for everybody, slathered with ads â to two new questions: What do our most committed users want? And what will turn our most frequent readers into committed users? Here are some things that wonât: More ads. More gossip. More syndicated copy. This is new territory for mainstream papers, who have always had head count rather than engagement as their principal business metric.
Celebrities behaving badly always drive page-views through the roof, but those readers will be anything but committed. Meanwhile, the people who hit the threshold and then hand over money are, almost by definition, people who regard the paper not just as an occasional source of interesting articles, but as an essential institution, one whose continued existence is vital no matter what todayâs offerings are.
In discussing why the most loyal subset of readers would pay for access to the Times, Felix Salmon described some of the motivations[/url] reported by users: âI like the product, understand the incentives involved, and want its production to continueâ and âI feel that maintaining a quality NYT is immensely important to the country as a whole.â Now, and presumably from now on, the readers that matter most are disproportionately likely to score high on the God Forbid index (as in âGod forbid the [i]Sun-Times[/i] not be around [url=âhttp://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/9541249-452/confused-by-ward-remap-fight.htmlâ]to keep an eye on the politicians!â)
The people who feel this way have always been a minority of the readership, a fact obscured by print bundles, but made painfully visible by paywalls. When a paper abandons the standard paywall strategy, it gives up on selling news as a simple transaction. Instead, it must also appeal to its readersâ non-financial and non-transactional motivations: loyalty, gratitude, dedication to the mission, a sense of identification with the paper, an urge to preserve it as an institution rather than a business.
Thresholds are now mostly being tried at big-city papers â New York, Chicago, Minneapolis. Most papers, however, are not the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Most papers are the Springfield Reporter, papers with a circulation 20,000 or less, and mostly made up of content bought from the Associated Press and United Media. These papers may not do well on the God Forbid index, because they produce so little original content, and they may not find thresholds financially viable, because the most engaged hundredth of their audience will number in the dozens, not the thousands.
On the other hand, local reporting is almost the only form of content for which the local paper is the sole source, so itâs also possible to imagine a virtuous circle for at least some small papers, where a civically-minded core of citizens step in to fund the paper in return for an increase in local coverage, both of politics and community matters. (Itâs hard to overstate how vital community coverage is for small-town papers, which have typically been as much village well as town crier.)
Itâs too early to know what behaviors the newly core users will reward or demand from their papers. They may start asking to see fewer or less intrusive ads than non-paying readers do. They may reward papers that make their comments section more conversational (as the Times has just done.) The most dramatic change, though, is that the paying users are almost certain to be more political engaged than the median reader.
There has never been a mass market for good journalism in this country. What there used to be was a mass market for print ads, coupled with a mass market for a physical bundle of entertainment, opinion, and information; these were tied to an institutional agreement to subsidize a modicum of real journalism. In that mass market, the opinions of the politically engaged readers didnât matter much, outnumbered as they were by people checking their horoscopes. This suited advertisers fine; they have always preferred a centrist and distanced political outlook, the better not to alienate potential customers. When the politically engaged readers are also the only paying readers, however, their opinion will come to matter more, and in ways that will sometimes contradict the advertisersâ desires for anodyne coverage.
It will take time for the economic weight of those users to affect the organizational form of the paper, but slowly slowly, form follows funding. For the moment at least, the most promising experiment in user support means forgoing mass in favor of passion; this may be the year where we see how papers figure out how to reward the people most committed to their long-term survival.
Do any of ye ever read Michael Harding in the Irish Times on a Friday? I think he writes wonderful stuff. Boxtys flowery report of spotting Colm OâRourke reminded me of him.