DIARMUID CONNOLLY, GER Brennan, Bernard Brogan and Kevin McManamon have all been named in the Dub Stars Football Selection for 2014.
The Dublin senior quartet have been rewarded for their club exploits after a season that saw Connolly and Brennan win the county title with St Vincent’s against Brogan’s St Oliver Plunkett’s-Eoghan Ruadh.
In total county champions St Vincent’s, who face Rhode in Sunday week’s Leinster club final, have nine players honoured with Plunkett’s having three awarded and there is one honour apiece for Ballyboden, Templeogue and St Jude’s.
DUBS STARS FOOTBALL
1. Michael Savage (St Vincent’s)
2. Robbie McDaid (Ballyboden St Enda’s)
3. Jarlath Curley (St Vincent’s)
4. Hugh Gill (St Vincent’s)
5. James Brogan (St Oliver Plunkett’s-Eoghan Ruadh)
6. Ger Brennan (St Vincent’s)
7. Michael Concarr (St Vincent’s)
8. Eamon Fennell (St Vincent’s)
9. Craig Dunleavy (St Oliver Plunkett’s-Eoghan Ruadh)
10. Gavin Burke (St Vincent’s)
11. Diarmuid Connolly (St Vincent’s)
12. Niall Scully (Templeogue Synge Street)
13. Ruairi Trainor (St Vincent’s)
14. Kevin McManamon (St Jude’s)
15. Bernard Brogan (St Oliver Plunkett’s-Eoghan Ruadh)
Subs
Daire Walsh (Ballyboden St-Enda’s)
Rory O’Connor (St Oliver Plunkett’s-Eoghan Ruadh)
Conor McKiernan (Templeogue Synge Street)
Mark Sweeney (St Jude’s)
Declan O’Mahony (Ballyboden St-Enda’s)
Conor Walsh (St Oliver Plunkett’s-Eoghan Ruadh)
Gareth Smith (St Oliver Plunkett’s-Eoghan Ruadh)
DANNY SUTCLIFFE, RORY O’Carroll and Shane Durkin are some of the big names honoured in the Dubs Stars hurling team.
O’Carroll is one of seven Kilmacud Crokes players recognised after their county championship winning campaign. Sutcliffe was part of the St Jude’s team defeated in that final and there are three other St Jude’s players recognised.
O’Toole’s, Ballyboden St-Enda’s and St Pat’s Palmerstown all have players honoured as well.
DUBS STARS HURLING
1. Matt Collins (Kilmacud Crokes)
2. Ger McManus (St Jude’s)
3. Rory O’Carroll (Kilmacud Crokes)
4. Ciaran Mangan (St Jude’s)
5. Cian Mac Gabhann (Kilmacud Crokes)
6. Jack Doughan (Kilmacud Crokes)
7. Shane Durkin (Ballyboden St-Enda’s)
8. Dillon Mulligan (Kilmacud Crokes)
9. Andrew Morris (O’Toole’s)
10. Conor Carton (O’Toole’s)
11. Danny Sutcliffe (St Jude’s)
12. Ross O’Carroll (Kilmacud Crokes)
13. Fionn Ó Riain-Broin (St Jude’s)
14. Sean McGrath (Kilmacud Crokes)
15. Shane Stapleton (St Pat’s Palmerstown)
Subs
David Quinn (Lucan Sarsfields)
Cian O’Callaghan (Cuala)
Rob Hardy (St Jude’s)
Ger O’Meara (O’Toole’s)
Paul Maguire (O’Toole’s)
Caolan Conway (Kilmacud Crokes)
Oisin O’Rorke (Kilmacud Crokes)
give the malvinas back then, you vile British colonialist thug.
The Falklands were never argentinian, just so you know.
The Argentine claim to The Falklands is weaker than that of Spain or France. Read some history and don’t just fall for the anti British line that comes from the usual suspects. Great riposte from the Falklanders at http://po.st/EwTMc9
Proof that some people should be prevented from breeding to stop the spread of breathtaking ignorance and general mouth breathing.
@Paul @Sean @Roy
A little Falklands history lesson….
First known sighting of the islands – 1600, Dutch.
First known to have set foot on the islands – 1690, British
(native patagonians were relatively primitive hunters and farmers, believed to engage in coastal seal hunts but with no evidence of true seafaring capability – extremely unlikely that they would have been capable of crossing 265 miles of some of the wildest oceans on the planet).
First known settlements – 1764, French, East Falkland. 1765-66, British, West Falkland. Each settlement ignorant of the presence of the other.
First involvement of the Spanish – 1767, when they took control of the French settlement.
First act of aggression – 1770, when the Spanish attacked the British colony and temporarily drove them from the islands.
By 1811 all settlers had withdrawn, leaving the islands uninhabited once again. Each settlement leaves its respective claim to the islands.
1816 – Argentine Republic founded.
1820 – Argentina claim the islands for themselves.
1828-31 – settlement established by Louis Vernet, a German merchant, after seeking permission from British and Argentine authorities. Settlement destroyed by the US.
1832 – Argentina attempt to create a penal colony but subsequently agree to leave after being requested to do so by the British.
1833 – Settlement established by the British. In continuous settlement to the present day, despite ten week Argentine invasion in 1982.
It is clear that Argentina have no legitimate claim based on first settlement or first discovery. The only basis of their claim must therefore be on geographic proximity. Applying that logic closer to home, it follows that France would have a legitimate claim to the islands of Ireland and Britain (see how ridiculous this is beginning to sound…..)
The islanders have a right to self-determination and they wish to remain British. Following the 1982 Argentine invasion I can’t see that changing anytime soon.
mattoid and the rest,
trying to make these racists understand an intelligent point is a waste of effort.
Well researched and written. I’m a bit wiser after reading your post.
If the Argentinians made the first verified claim to the islands as you say. does that not legitimise their present-day claim?
The history of it now is largely irrelevant at this stage. Many of the people there have been there for the best part of 200 years, there was no indigenous population. They have right to self determination and wish to remain British. There ends the argument.
@john
I never said that Argentina made the first verified claim – sorry if thats how you interpreted it.
I merely stated the year that Argentina first expressed an interest in the islands, which was long after they had already been settled by both British and French (which also happens to be long before Argentina even existed!)
When settlers left by 1811, each settlement continued to maintain its claim to the islands (as opposed to abandoning their claim) – apologies if this is where my original wording led to confusion.
The argies lost and now they are just acting like kids
Shows how ignorant you are James if you think others backward for remembering their history. In fact it is you who go back further into our history bringing up Diarmait Mac Murchada of 1126 but any one who brings up Irish history since then like the arrival of Cromwell 1649, the Act of Settlement 1656, the battle of the boyne in 1690 are all backward…. Ha you are indeed a joker
Living in Argentina at the moment and the family I’m staying with were a bit shocked when this came on. Seemed split on the whole issue.
You’s can drop the anti-British crap. The people of the Island are British, they all want to be under British rule and the Argentinians have no claim at all, they have never owned them
And should never own them. And before we get into comparisons with Ireland, the people of ireland are Irish and wanted to rule themselves, the Falklands are inhabited by British people and want to be ruled from Britain. AND northern Ireland is a totally different situation before that starts.
actually, I think they consider themselves to be Falklanders and not specifically British. One thing is certain – they are not Argentinian nor have they ever been. Argentinias claim can only be considered a land grab.
How exactly is the north different?
The Malvinas ,Gibraltar , northern Ireland,etc etc…..
Just hand them back lizzie
grow up Roy. You’re just confirming the widely held belief that all republicans are thick.
Pseudo-Jean, your words would carry far more weight if weren’t blindingly obvious that you’re on some sort of crusade yourself. And frankly it’s insensitive and childish of you to apply that woman’s name to your account, not to mention hypocritical and extremely disrespectful.
An Argentinian running away on the falklands. Nothing new there then.
Next up … We’ll have Darren O’Sullivan the Kerry footballer handing back Sam McGuire cause he’s a Cockney
Sam MAGUIRE was born in cork.
All in capital letters I’m sure … Tit
Just showing you how to spell. TIT.
James I hope that’s not a tricolor behind you…….. A country thousands of miles away from an island claiming to own it, where have I heard that before?
And a country hundreds of miles away who never posessed them claiming to own them makes sense to you then?
It is a tricolor but I also happen to know the history of the Falklands, it all goes back to the treaty of utrecht, and by the way I’m not backwards enough to still go on about what the British did hundreds of years ago, sure we invited them over to help us win a war, and king diarmuid awarded the English lords land in return
Irony is that the parent company of the ad-agency who produced it is actually British!
Its really not about who owns the Malvinas/Falklands its about the Oil and Mineral wealth that is in its 200 mile? limit.
The British and the Argentinians already work together on the south sandwich Islands and other Islands in that area.
Las Malvinas are Argentinian, the islanders that live there are a planted population that should be given every assistance to return to the country that they have most allegiance to. As Tommy Byrne of the Wolfe Tones would sing “the Irish still support you Argentina”.
And if they did move the population back to Britain and the Argentinians moved it, would they be any less of a planted population? Especially considering the Argentinians have never had a population on the islands at Amy point in their history.
Geographical distance is no basis for a claim to any territory, and as others have said above, it would seem that proximity is the only card that Argentina can play. They have no right to those islands and this ad is absolutely pathetic.
@Chris J
Read the rest of the thread. The only native population there are seals and seagulls.
Idiot… really please… Malvines my ass.
@Chris Jordan – I suspect that the irony of your post is totally lost on you.
Argentina for the native patagonians alone!
@ jean mcConville
Get a life!!
Racists?????
Ps nice hair style
racism= the prejudice of judging people on their ethnicity or nationality without, or in spite of,evidence.
hairstyle? its not a photo of me!!
Ahhh the joys of wikipedia !!!!!!!!
yes curse those people who are informed and the facts that prove you wrong. I don’t see why you’re sneering at someone doing something you could have easily done for yourself
Which part of it do you think is incorrect Roy?
That’s a pic of u alright !! Ya bigot !!!
you can talk humpty
Agh the joys of Wikipedia !!!