Should the gaa allow the Liam Miller testimonial in Pairc hi Caoimh - poll

[Jinxy]

No, I wasn't outraged by Duff's comments.
You really seem to struggle with comprehension.
I explained multiple times why Duff's comments had taken the conversation in a very unhelpful direction.
You could sum up my reaction as, 'We could have done without his comments'.
That's hardly outrage.

[johnnycool]

I think this is a pretty unique case.
To take the example of the soccer team wanting to use a GAA stadium with a bigger capacity for a competitive game, it wouldn't have anything like the groundswell of support that the Miller charity game has had, and could be easily shot down if necessary.

Who would shoot it down?

If the county board decided to - do you think the social media warriors would wade in supporting the U-14s whose final was that night?

Cancer is in the news every day of the week, so when you refuse access to a stadium for a fundraising game on the basis that 'rules is rules', you're pulling in a massive constituency that has no real interest in sport, but cannot understand why everything is not being done to support a charity game for a young husband and father who died of cancer.

But rules *are* rules - the most recent query on this rule would have been Clare's motion on opening up grounds that were not Croke Park. Defeated by approx 77% to 23%.

The best ad-hoc the GAA could have done would have been a telephone vote of county delegates on a one-off opening of PUC for this game.

As I have said before, congress should separate Croke Park, PUC and a stadium in each of Connacht and Ulster, from the rest of the GAA grounds in the official guide.
Let them run any event they see fit.
If Munster need more capacity for a big European game, let them use PUC.
If Connacht need more capacity, let them use Pearse stadium.
The reality is that there are not a massive amount of big sporting events that would be able to make use of the additional capacity, outside of European Cup rugby games.

That suggestion makes sense. However, to take this case, would PUC have been the designated Munster stadium? Or would it have been Semple Stadium?

What about the rules the GAA agreed with the EU over the funding? You seem to have avoided that

Is this the community aspect you are talking about?

Yes, obviously.

   I see this new stadium in Drogheda is on a green field site owned by Louth County Council. Surely it will need to meet this community requirement and be fit to hold GAA games to get Government funding, no?

If the GAA can't have their cake and eat it (BTW I do agree on multi functional facilities when government funding is used) then neither should the FAI and the IRFU.

[five points]

The motion before Congress has to be worded in such a way that leaves delegates in no doubt that we will go 'this far and no further'.
Initially designate a small number of grounds, and then put in place a system whereby provincial/county boards can apply to have a ground added to the list, after canvassing club delegates.
That way, nobody is being forced into anything (I'm looking at you Ulster!)

Why would anybody be forced into anything?

The whole point about abolishing Rule 42 is that local GAA units could make their own decisions about their own premises in their own best interests.

Currently, they can't.

They're being forced to abide by a broad brush, inflexible rule even in situations where it would clearly be in the best interests of both themselves and their local communities.

It's quite similar to the 8th Amendment debate.

Those who advocate the abolition of Rule 42 are proposing choice. Those who advocate it being kept are against choice.

Whatever about the 8th Amendment  the reasoning behind the current rule is clear and logical. Without it, a club could be flooded with new members, who can join simply by paying a modest annual membership fee, and who could then vote to let the club grounds to a competing sporting code.

[Keyser soze]

You wouldn't want to pay too much attention to people on social media who threaten to stop buying things, subscribing to things, going to things etc. on the back of the latest thing they're pretending to be outraged about.

Were you not outraged by Duffs comments? Let me guess, thats differenr.

Syferus, Sid and BB are so outraged that they won't make a contribution to the Liam Miller fund lol 

[sid waddell]

The motion before Congress has to be worded in such a way that leaves delegates in no doubt that we will go 'this far and no further'.
Initially designate a small number of grounds, and then put in place a system whereby provincial/county boards can apply to have a ground added to the list, after canvassing club delegates.
That way, nobody is being forced into anything (I'm looking at you Ulster!)

Why would anybody be forced into anything?

The whole point about abolishing Rule 42 is that local GAA units could make their own decisions about their own premises in their own best interests.

Currently, they can't.

They're being forced to abide by a broad brush, inflexible rule even in situations where it would clearly be in the best interests of both themselves and their local communities.

It's quite similar to the 8th Amendment debate.

Those who advocate the abolition of Rule 42 are proposing choice. Those who advocate it being kept are against choice.

Whatever about the 8th Amendment  the reasoning behind the current rule is clear and logical. Without it, a club could be flooded with new members, who can join simply by paying a modest annual membership fee, and who could then vote to let the club grounds to a competing sporting code.

Jaysus. Entryism. The daft excuses get even dafter.

Can you tell me why this isn't happening in any other sporting clubs up and down the country?

What exactly is your problem with local GAA units giving the use of premises as they see fit, ie. in the way Leinster rugby did with Ranelagh Gaels or as Ulster Rugby did for the Anto Finnegan game when the organisers had no stadium to play it in?

Monageer-Boolavogue GAA club in Wexford have admitted to flagrantly breaking the rules of the GAA by giving the use of their premises to others. What do you think should be done about that?

Given that the GAA was set up at a time when landlords were doing immense harm to Irish people, and was set up as the sporting element of a widespread reaction against such, it's deeply ironic that so many "fior gaels" have such a landlord mentality.

[sid waddell]

No, I wasn't outraged by Duff's comments.
You really seem to struggle with comprehension.
I explained multiple times why Duff's comments had taken the conversation in a very unhelpful direction.
You could sum up my reaction as, 'We could have done without his comments'.
That's hardly outrage.

Those defending the GAA's stance and clinging to the rulebook are the people who have brought the concept of the projection of "fake outrage" onto others into this thread.

I find that when people do that, it's always an attempt to deflect and to delegitimise the views of those they are debating with, because they know they're losing the debate.

As it is here.

It's a full on Trumpism.

You could say we could have done without that sort of thing.

[sid waddell]

You wouldn't want to pay too much attention to people on social media who threaten to stop buying things, subscribing to things, going to things etc. on the back of the latest thing they're pretending to be outraged about.

Were you not outraged by Duffs comments? Let me guess, thats differenr.

Syferus, Sid and BB are so outraged that they won't make a contribution to the Liam Miller fund lol

If you can't debate on a level above that of a ten year-old, and on the evidence of this thread, you're quite obviously incapable of doing so, my best advice to you would be to stop posting.

[Keyser soze]

You wouldn't want to pay too much attention to people on social media who threaten to stop buying things, subscribing to things, going to things etc. on the back of the latest thing they're pretending to be outraged about.

Were you not outraged by Duffs comments? Let me guess, thats differenr.

Syferus, Sid and BB are so outraged that they won't make a contribution to the Liam Miller fund lol

If you can't debate on a level above that of a ten year-old, and on the evidence of this thread, you're quite obviously incapable of doing so, my best advice to you would be to stop posting.

Calling you, [and those other 2 windbags]  charlatans, is not debating, it is just stating a fact.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

I have to say congratulations are in order for keyser soze and trailer - on a thread with both Syferus and MR2 posting - you both have been proven to be bigger arseholes than the both of them. Some going - well done.

3 days later - soze still going strong

[Rossfan]

Time for Sligoman to lock this thread.
If people want to debate the use of GAA property let them open another thread.

[five points]

Can you tell me why this isn't happening in any other sporting clubs up and down the country?

Maybe because most of them haven't gotten a blade of grass to their name. But nip down to the local golf club and ask them can you kick a bit of ball on their turf and you'll be told where to go

What exactly is your problem with local GAA units giving the use of premises as they see fit, ie. in the way Leinster rugby did with Ranelagh Gaels or as Ulster Rugby did for the Anto Finnegan game when the organisers had no stadium to play it in?

This isn't really about what I think. As my earlier post states, the GAA has very lax membership rules. Basically anyone can join, for whatever reason. That suits us fine. Many golf clubs require you to be nominated by existing members and there are all sorts of waiting periods and other terms and conditions.

But once you become a GAA member, you have full voting rights in your club. The quid-pro-quo of that is that you're not empowered to make big decisions like the selling of land or renting it to competing sports.

On balance, I think that's fair enough. The alternative could be worse.

Monageer-Boolavogue GAA club in Wexford have admitted to flagrantly breaking the rules of the GAA by giving the use of their premises to others. What do you think should be done about that?

Have they? Their facebook account claimed as much, but I haven't seen a club statement confirm that. And its not my job to police them.

Given that the GAA was set up at a time when landlords were doing immense harm to Irish people, and was set up as the sporting element of a widespread reaction against such, it's deeply ironic that so many "fior gaels" have such a landlord mentality.

  How many "fior gaels" lock their doors at night?

[Baile Brigín 2]

I think this is a pretty unique case.
To take the example of the soccer team wanting to use a GAA stadium with a bigger capacity for a competitive game, it wouldn't have anything like the groundswell of support that the Miller charity game has had, and could be easily shot down if necessary.

Who would shoot it down?

If the county board decided to - do you think the social media warriors would wade in supporting the U-14s whose final was that night?

Cancer is in the news every day of the week, so when you refuse access to a stadium for a fundraising game on the basis that 'rules is rules', you're pulling in a massive constituency that has no real interest in sport, but cannot understand why everything is not being done to support a charity game for a young husband and father who died of cancer.

But rules *are* rules - the most recent query on this rule would have been Clare's motion on opening up grounds that were not Croke Park. Defeated by approx 77% to 23%.

The best ad-hoc the GAA could have done would have been a telephone vote of county delegates on a one-off opening of PUC for this game.

As I have said before, congress should separate Croke Park, PUC and a stadium in each of Connacht and Ulster, from the rest of the GAA grounds in the official guide.
Let them run any event they see fit.
If Munster need more capacity for a big European game, let them use PUC.
If Connacht need more capacity, let them use Pearse stadium.
The reality is that there are not a massive amount of big sporting events that would be able to make use of the additional capacity, outside of European Cup rugby games.

That suggestion makes sense. However, to take this case, would PUC have been the designated Munster stadium? Or would it have been Semple Stadium?

What about the rules the GAA agreed with the EU over the funding? You seem to have avoided that

Is this the community aspect you are talking about?

Yes, obviously.

   I see this new stadium in Drogheda is on a green field site owned by Louth County Council. Surely it will need to meet this community requirement and be fit to hold GAA games to get Government funding, no?

If the GAA can't have their cake and eat it (BTW I do agree on multi functional facilities when government funding is used) then neither should the FAI and the IRFU.

Gaelic games, or any other sport, will not be banned from the project. If they can be accommodated they will be. This argument was used in relation to Tallaght and its false.

You are very disingenuously not making a distinction between Rule 42 type bans on sports and a sport not being logistically appropriate in a venue. 

[Baile Brigín 2]

You wouldn't want to pay too much attention to people on social media who threaten to stop buying things, subscribing to things, going to things etc. on the back of the latest thing they're pretending to be outraged about.

Were you not outraged by Duffs comments? Let me guess, thats differenr.

Syferus, Sid and BB are so outraged that they won't make a contribution to the Liam Miller fund lol

You throw up the link to the fund, I'll make a contribution. In the meantime, change the record, you are boring.

[Keyser soze]

You wouldn't want to pay too much attention to people on social media who threaten to stop buying things, subscribing to things, going to things etc. on the back of the latest thing they're pretending to be outraged about.

Were you not outraged by Duffs comments? Let me guess, thats differenr.

Syferus, Sid and BB are so outraged that they won't make a contribution to the Liam Miller fund lol

You throw up the link to the fund, I'll make a contribution. In the meantime, change the record, you are boring.

Well maybe it is boring pointing out your absolute hypocrisy, on here ad nauseum criticising the GAA for not helping Liam Millar , when you patently do not give a single flying f**k about him or his family, and then getting miffed when someone draws attention to that.

Yourself, Syferus and Sid are just the kind of people who have zero positive input into the GGA as you are too busy criticising the people who do put in the work. There's a load of hoors like ye in every club in the land and you should be called out for your hypocrisy at every available opportunity.

I would have thought a man who knows so much about the intricacies of this situation would be able to find a link to make a contribution, but as I said above you are just the type to sit back and expect someone else to do the work for you.

[sid waddell]

Can you tell me why this isn't happening in any other sporting clubs up and down the country?

Maybe because most of them haven't gotten a blade of grass to their name. But nip down to the local golf club and ask them can you kick a bit of ball on their turf and you'll be told where to go

What exactly is your problem with local GAA units giving the use of premises as they see fit, ie. in the way Leinster rugby did with Ranelagh Gaels or as Ulster Rugby did for the Anto Finnegan game when the organisers had no stadium to play it in?

This isn't really about what I think. As my earlier post states, the GAA has very lax membership rules. Basically anyone can join, for whatever reason. That suits us fine. Many golf clubs require you to be nominated by existing members and there are all sorts of waiting periods and other terms and conditions.

But once you become a GAA member, you have full voting rights in your club. The quid-pro-quo of that is that you're not empowered to make big decisions like the selling of land or renting it to competing sports.

On balance, I think that's fair enough. The alternative could be worse.

Monageer-Boolavogue GAA club in Wexford have admitted to flagrantly breaking the rules of the GAA by giving the use of their premises to others. What do you think should be done about that?

Have they? Their facebook account claimed as much, but I haven't seen a club statement confirm that. And its not my job to police them.

Given that the GAA was set up at a time when landlords were doing immense harm to Irish people, and was set up as the sporting element of a widespread reaction against such, it's deeply ironic that so many "fior gaels" have such a landlord mentality.

  How many "fior gaels" lock their doors at night?

Why would anybody want to kick a football on a golf course? Have you got any other red herring deflections?

GAA clubs frequently buy and sell land. How do you think Parnell's sold their land, or Castleknock or acquired their site?

Take Castleknock. Their members were the ones who raised the finances to acquire their site. If, for argument's sake, they wanted to raise extra revenue by sometimes renting it out to other parties, why the hell shouldn't they be able to? It's their site.

If your post is not about what you think, why are you posting?

Can you explain to me how you envisage "hostile actors" infiltrating a club in order to take it over and make decisions that the existing membership don't want to make?

How would it happen? Would it be an organised campaign by the dastardly "soccer crowd"?

In the fantastical scenario you envisage, such a club would end up pretty wealthy from all those juicy extra membership fees and renting out of premises.

Would this be something you lie awake at night worrying about, or are you just scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for fantastical reasons to justify Rule 42?

The reality is that up and down the country, many people are already involved in clubs across different sports. People who play GAA during the summer often play association football or rugby during the winter. Few people who play association football haven't played GAA at some stage, and vice versa. Many of the same people who are involved in GAA clubs are the same people who follow Ireland in association football or rugby or follow Liverpool or Manchester United. Sean Cox for example.

The Monageer-Boolavogue statement was from the chairman of that club. If you have an opinion on Rule 42 or on the Liam Miller match or have a fantastical idea of "entryism" by people involved in other sports, I'm amazed you wouldn't have a view on the chairman of that club stating that they are flagrantly breaking the rules of the GAA and will continue to do so.

Of course I lock my doors at night. Is this another hair-brained attempt at a failed analogy to go with the golf course one and the supermarket one?

You didn't answer the central question. What exactly is the problem with local GAA units giving the use of premises as they see fit, ie. in the way Leinster rugby did with Ranelagh Gaels or as Ulster Rugby did for the Anto Finnegan game when the organisers had no stadium to play it in? Ranelagh would have found things very difficult without such help, and there would have bene no place to play the Anto Finnegan game.

Clubs in other sports are allowed to do so for the benefit of GAA clubs and teams. Why should the GAA not allow its clubs and county boards to do so if they see fit?

What all this about is simple. It's about being good neighbours, creating community, allowing a generosity of spirit to prevail, and basically not acting the dickhead.