Cork players' strike: As might be expected of what has fast become the perfect puzzle, solutions to the Cork impasse have defied easy conception.

Both parties manoeuvred themselves into a situation where there is justification on both sides and from which there is virtually no ability to withdraw.

The county board did everything by the book and are entitled to do what they did last October and November. The problem is that by any objective analysis, what they did was ill-advised and inconsistent with best practice. It was also a departure from a status quo that the players are convinced was agreed in the resolution of the 2002 dispute.

The players have been unfairly characterised as constantly changing their demands and positions. In fact, the situation hasn't changed. They're still looking for managers to choose their own selectors and refusing, as they indicated they would last November, to play while a management put together under the new dispensation is still in place.

Perhaps the hurlers and the footballers, who don't want to play under that new management, are being stubborn, but why is that stance any more stubborn than the county board's insistence that a situation they have more or less accepted as unsatisfactory - by their agreement to recommend its termination next autumn - should endure for the rest of this season?

Why is it any more stubborn than Teddy Holland's insistence that because his appointment was procedurally correct there is no reason for him to consider his position given the turmoil it has caused?

Just over five years ago then hurling manager Bertie Murphy, who had arguably less input into player grievances, walked away to facilitate a resolution.

It's not an unique situation for someone to find themselves the victim of unfortunate circumstances and this situation has to be judged in that context.

Luridly depictions of a surrender to player power are unconvincing. Players bring about the end of managers all the time within the GAA as well as in other sports. Once an adequate, working relationship between teams and mentors breaks down, there's no future for the arrangement.

In this case that relationship hasn't had the chance even to get off the ground. The fault is circular - the county board shouldn't have changed the procedures, the players shouldn't have escalated the dispute so quickly and Teddy Holland shouldn't have been so fast to jump into a volatile situation.

How could the team and management hope to function in these circumstances? It's like going to court to try and enforce reconciliation in a broken marriage.

The problem has been exacerbated by the players' unfortunately-timed publicity campaign that had been launched earlier in the week of Kieran Mulvey's agreement to act as facilitator. Some of the scuds were only hitting on the weekend of the talks.

Matters haven't been helped either by the county board's willingness to lay bare documents and details and spin like tops as soon as the talks falter. No strangers to the value of media manipulation themselves, the players are perhaps being overly precious about this, but can anyone say it's a sensible way to conduct attempts to resolve a delicate problem of this nature?

Ultimately, the players are being asked to do the heavy lifting in this. The best way of choosing selectors will be re-introduced - but only next season. Holland's position will be reviewed - but only next season. A laudable and sensible blueprint for future relationships will be introduced - but only when the players have agreed to pick up the tab for the current impasse.

It was impressive that Kieran Mulvey and Páraic Duffy undertook to enter the whirlwind of this dispute with no great reason for optimism, especially as Mulvey had been naturally cautious about returning without assurances that both parties were willing to move.

Without those undertakings he none the less went back and continues to make himself available should the process splutter back into life.

In his News at Oneinterview yesterday Mulvey said that both parties needed to be careful about "asking for a situation that's not capable of delivery". This appeared to be a clear reference to the fact that Teddy Holland had been properly appointed and still retained the emphatic support of the county board.

The trouble is that getting the players to play in these circumstances doesn't look any more capable of delivery.

Popping the Cork

What is the core issue ? A meeting of the Cork County Board last October decided by 84-11 to change the practice of county managers choosing their own selectors, which in future would be appointed by the board.

Players objected to this as being a departure from best practice, as well as a breach of the agreement reached to resolve a previous dispute between the county board and players back in 2002. The county board questioned whether the choice of selectors had been part of that settlement.

Players criticised the notice given for the October decision and called on clubs to debate the issue in order that the county board could reverse its decision. In a statement to the Irish Examineron November 13th they further stated: "We are all agreed that we are not going to partake in it (the new system) or the county teams while this system is in place, regardless of who might be appointed under it.

"We wish to be clear about this; if somebody is appointed as a selector by the board and/or its sub-committee in the face of this statement and our motion, we will not be the parties creating a difficult situation or a stand-off."

In the event, the November meeting a week later reaffirmed the decision, 79-35, and also ratified the appointment of Teddy Holland as football manager.

What is the main stumbling block ? Teddy Holland, although validly appointed by the county board on November 20th, has found himself the main stumbling block to resolution of the issue.

The players argue that they had signalled their unwillingness to play under the new system prior to Holland's ratification, pointing out that the controversy surrounding the issue had caused other candidates for the manager's role to rule themselves out of contention.

They feel he acted at best precipitously in accepting the appointment. Holland says he was properly appointed and was happy with the input he had in to the choice of selectors. The board stand by the appointment of both manager and selectors.

What about yesterday's statement ? According to the Cork County Board statement of yesterday the players are willing to play under Holland for the coming season provided new selectors are appointed.

Player sources say this is a selective misrepresentation of a negotiating position and that their position on the football management hasn't changed.

Where does it go from here ? The players are expected to issue a statement this morning responding to yesterday's county board release and there will be a full meeting of the football and hurling panels at some time over the weekend.

Channels of communication remain open, but the scope for manoeuvre looks extremely limited.

What will be the impact ? Calling off Sunday's NHL match between Cork and Kilkenny is now a formality, which is also expected at some stage today. Next week will see the final deadline reached with a double programme of NFL and NHL fixtures scheduled for next weekend.

Should Cork be unable to fulfil the footballers' and hurlers' second scheduled matches, against Dublin and Waterford respectively, Croke Park's Competitions Control Committee, which next meets on Tuesday week, 19th February, is expected to act on its recent decision to terminate the league involvement of any team that fails to fulfil two fixtures in its respective league.

In the now likely event of that happening to Cork, the impact on the National Leagues will be serious with the county being relegated to Division Three of the NFL and more significantly Division Two of the NHL, which operates at a level drastically below Cork's.

So the operation of the 2009 league competitions would be considerably distorted.