Messages

[GAA (who you elected to represent you) : motion on grants has been debated at length over the past 5 years and was passed by central council months back]

I hear Joe Brolly were there last night. Did anyone think to ask Joe which charity or club he donates the money he makes off the back of his fellow players? RTÉ pundit, newspaper articles, speaker circuit etc. all this on top of his healthily salary cheque as a barrister which has no doubt halped his profile and client base!!! Sickening hypocrisy again. If Joe feels so strongly about anyone profiting from our games he would want to look in the mirror. (By the way I don't object to Joe doing well just the hypocracy)

According to the paper today Lasts night meeting claimed to respresent "the true gaels" and "grassroots" of ulster GAA yet the only ones there were those opposing it by the sounds of it. Red Hand Luke - Who did you invite to speak on behalf on other parties?

Before you all jump down my throat and say you are not invited to GPA meetings or grant negotiations meetings you might want to note the following:

GAA (who you elected to represent you) : motion on grants has been debated at length over the past 5 years and was passed by central council months back

Government : Again this debate has taken place over the last five years in the public domain - how many of you approached a government representative to object to this?

GPA: They respresent their members- Inter County player who sign up to them -  why would you be invited to a private members meeting?

By the way - One of your big issues here is that volunteers have to pay this. If the GPA took it out of the hands of GAA - would you be happy then?? I think not.


Again I ask what happened to stamping out the managers payments on the agenda?

ULSTER SAYS NO - UVA - emotive words lads, just a pity some common sense hasn't prevailed here


As far as I can see this is about a loss of control and people seeing an opportunity to make a name for themselves.

If central council, congress and croke park took every decision in the GAA for the last number fo years then the ban to play foreign sports would not have been lifted in 1971 and Croe Park would never have been opened to soccer and rugby - the precedent has been set to ask the whole association their opinion on major issues - whether you like it or not this is a major issue

£20 a week FFS

Why is this misleading?

20 quid at todays rates is 27.6502 euro a week (1404 euro a year), which is the more than the minimum amount of the grant scheme.

so technically its less than 20 quid a week...

Ah somebody has fallen for the old trap

Its misleading for a number of reasons. The original proposal in april was based on participation between feb and the end of the champ - so it was a max of 7 and half months months u got to the all ireland final( of course u got 2800 if you got that far - that works out at 373 per month or 93 euro per week - now if u were unlucky enough to get knocked out n the second round of the qualifiers then you got 1650 for you five and a half months work - that is 75 euro per week. 

Now. To be absoutley clear about this there has been no figures released relating to the latest figures but it says quite clearly that the grants are only determined from the end of the champ which reduces this time frame radically.

The GPA neevr said this was for a year long commitment toplaying niter county football.

If the GPA said this was for the whole year then fine - but wait, then they would have to argue in favour of a 12 month season - this agreement means that some poor bollox could train from november to april - then get dropped and get sweet FA. Fair??

They were willing to go on strike over the principal not the amount involved. Everybody saying this is professionaism and pay for play etc. I hardly think that aprox £20 a week is what they were striking over do you honestly think it would be worth the grief?!  It's a pity people didn't see that it's not all about the money but the principle of recognising players for what they are and what they bring to the association rather than telling them to shut up and sit in the corner and be happy with what all the "benefits" that they "all" enjoy

What are you on about Clubmember?
Are you saying the players only want recognition of waht they contribute to Irish society?
You say "I hardly think that aprox £20 a week is what they were striking over"
Why the threat of a strike?
Is the only way to give people recognition by giving them money?

Full back, what is worse is the figure he uses of £20 per week? Where the hell is he getting that from?? You see its that sort of misleading statement used to back up an argument that annoys me - £20 a week FFS

Are you for real clubmember?

You said 'as far as I know the GPA voted aganst pay for play at an AGM' - you see I deal with specifics - if you can't back up something you present as a fact with evidence then please do not say it - it is the biggest single fault of posters on this board.

Your point about being in the championship for longer is the one aspect where the GPA have managed to hoodwink everyone - now listen carefully - The figures which were released in April meant that the further you got the more you could claim on a per week basis - so if you got to an all ireland final u cud claim 94 euro per week from feb to sept but if you got knocked out in the second round qualifier you only cud claim 73 euro per week from feb to middle of july - so while both men were still in the championship the all ireland finalists could claim 20 euro more per week. OK. The system, if it is only to cover expenses incured,  implies that because you are an all ireland winner you will have more expenses in feb than if you are a second round loser. WTF???
Now b4 anyone jumps down my throat I know there has been no figures released for this latest document but I am just pointing out that despite the spin put on this by the GPA the original figures always favoured those who got further by giving them more money on a per week basis.

And what are u on about with the third point - are u saying i shud possibly leave the association cos i do not agree with its core princiapals!!!!! I do agree with the core principals which is why i keep rasing the issue!!!!!


Sorry just seen you say £20 per week for the players!!!! where does that figure come from - thin air i presume!!!

Clubmember -

Thanx for ignoring me again. Im feeling a bit jilted at this stage  

Clubmember -

U asked a number of questions and rasied a few points on the previous page. I replyed and a made a number of points of my own and asked you a few question.

Can you respond to these or do you just pick and choose who you have your debates with?

Sorry lads is this not what club agm's are for? 

care to answer my post in the other thread clubmember?

ALL:

Please define PAY FOR PLAY in one sentence for me. - Just one sentence - what it means to you. It is thrown about here all the time along with "thin end of the wedge" and other cliches. I would just like you to explain them in very simple terms

The GPA and all of it's members voted AGAINST "PAY FOR PLAY" and any type of "PROFESSIONALISM" but that's not enough. This GRANT is not pay for play it is a GRANT to help with preparation to play a game to the highest level so that WE can enjoy it and more importantly so that they can generate the tens of millions of euros that fund this association and pay for administrators so that we can progress further as an organisation and grow as an organisation.

Also wrt managers payments/grants etc : You all seem to be opposed to them yet no meetings have been called, no organisation established to combat this !!!!!!!!!!!!! As far as I can see this is an anti -GPA political agenda that represents the view of a few. Even if you have 100 or 200 people at your meeting tonight are you honestly going to claim to represent all GRASSROOTS members? That's almost 1 MILLION members!!  

When did GPA members vote against pay for play? I thought it was never on their agenda so how did they get the opportunity to vote against it??

Also if this is just a grant to cover expenses why is it performance related? If it is truly to help preparation why are all players not allocated the same amount of money each week while they are in the championship.

My definition of pay for play is that it is money recieved for playing GAA over and above legitimate expenses.

And with respect to managers being paid I think this is the single biggest problem within the association at the moment and the few years that my club agreed to pay more than expenses I objected strongly at the time and also at the AGM at the end of the year.

[Democracy Max - it has not happenned with respect to this issue. If it did and the majority backed the governemnt paying grants then it would be the right thing to do! If the majority do not agree however then it is not the right thing to do!]

those who believe these grants will have no long term effect on the gaa are seriously deluded or niave,i can tell you now if these grants go through which looks likely you can mark the date and look back and say that was the day the gaa died as we no it.

I'll bet a grand that when rule 21 went there was many a memeber said the same or rule 42, it called scare mongering. The GAA will never allow professionalism into its ranks, well  not in the next 20 years at least. No one knows the future.


Nag I would love you to come and work for me...because your idea of being paid is very different from mine. I pay my employees, not the government, infact the government doing nothing for me but take my hard earned cash. When ever the GAA start to pay these lads, then I'll take up the fight.

Max - there is a huge difference between rule 21, rule 42 and this debate - In the first two incidences yes there was people who thought that the association would be negatively effected by any tampering with these rules but the crucial thing is is that the majority of association members disagreed with them! 30 out of 32 counties, when they asked the opinion of their club members, decided to delete rule 21.
Democracy Max - it has not happenned with respect to this issue.
If it did and the majority backed the governemnt paying grants then it would be the right thing to do! If the majority do not agree however then it is not the right thing to do!

You have A fair point and the congress vote on the issue will put that to bed, after all they have all been elected.

Nag as I have said before I will trust the trustees that we have elected to put together a solution to satisfy the questions you ask. Is any system perfect....you only have to look at the munster football champiopnship to answer my point. Our association will not allow real pay for play to happen, I am confident in that. Nag I never read your posts against the uni grants for players or volunteering secs postion being made into full time paid professional posts. Where are you on that front

One probel with that Max is that if we simply let congress decide on everything we would still be banning people for playing soccer!

those who believe these grants will have no long term effect on the gaa are seriously deluded or niave,i can tell you now if these grants go through which looks likely you can mark the date and look back and say that was the day the gaa died as we no it.

I'll bet a grand that when rule 21 went there was many a memeber said the same or rule 42, it called scare mongering. The GAA will never allow professionalism into its ranks, well  not in the next 20 years at least. No one knows the future.


Nag I would love you to come and work for me...because your idea of being paid is very different from mine. I pay my employees, not the government, infact the government doing nothing for me but take my hard earned cash. When ever the GAA start to pay these lads, then I'll take up the fight.

Max - there is a huge difference between rule 21, rule 42 and this debate - In the first two incidences yes there was people who thought that the association would be negatively effected by any tampering with these rules but the crucial thing is is that the majority of association members disagreed with them! 30 out of 32 counties, when they asked the opinion of their club members, decided to delete rule 21.
Democracy Max - it has not happenned with respect to this issue.
If it did and the majority backed the governemnt paying grants then it would be the right thing to do! If the majority do not agree however then it is not the right thing to do!

DMarsden - A few points - Firstly congrats on presenting some well reasoned arguments -

Now you said; "i would venture that the overwhelming majority of county players would be in favour of a shift in emphasis towards club football. everyone is a clubman first and formost are they not? i know that this is high on the gpa members'agenda."

I cant agree with you 100% there. They did make recomendations to Paric Duffy concerning the player burnout report but I have read these and simply believe that they do not go far enough. Furthermore if the GPA's membership were balloted on these recomendations then I would wager the majority would want even more of a reduction in their playing time. Also,  the agreement signed last week, IMO, ensures that the inter county player now has to committ even more.

I'm not anti GPA but I am not pro them either - I just think that their management/decision makes has decided that grant aid is the biggest issue facing players and ran with it.

Jesus Dubs I'm getting a sore head  -  I said that i would wait until the figures are out to past final judgement on this. The whole premise of the GPA is that it recognises the Mayo hurler as much as the Kerry footballer. I am just saying that I am surprised they have agreed a document that sets up two distinct teirs and that as of yet does not have assurances (in written form) that weaker counties will not receive proportionately less money when compared to those in the upper tier.

Your right blast, im totally against these grants because they are pay for play. But it annoys me when people start quoting figures as facts when they have nothing to back them up. And the difference in grant is important esp given that the GPA deny that they are discriminating against some of their own members.

But I agree with your point. Even if everyone was getting the same I would still be against this shambles for a whole host of reasons.

Believebelieve - Did you read the original GAA/GPA proposal that was put forward for the grants first time round??? That will give you a reasonably good idea as to what the payouts will be....

Yes I did - i know it inside out actually and it is wildly different to this present cobbled together effort - which is why I am asking again if the GPA know that there will only be 800 euro between the All ireland finalists and first round losers then why do they not just release the figures that say this? The answer is that these figures have not been worked out yet!!!!!
And to be pedantic if I were using the original proposal that the GAA/GPA agreed to the the difference between All Ireland finalist and first round loser is 1150 -  I repeat - there are not figures concerning this document officially released yet - so where do you get this 800 euro from  - and please don't sat Dessie told one of the papers and they printed it!!!!!

DMarsden - have to ask you one question about this quote of yours.

"This is the sort of lazy stuff that i ruining the quality of this forum. Grant will vary but there's be no more than E800 between first round losers and all ireland finalists."


Where have you seen this figure written down in black and white? And i don't mean some quote from dessie in the sunday papers. Actual figures in an official written document wud be nice? don't think you will find it somehow. That is the problem with this whole things - somebody throws out a line to a newspaper and everyone takes it as the truth - the same shite happenned when everyone believed the GAA wud not administer the grants.

To me the problem with the whole thing is that if there really was such a little difference between first round losers and All Ireland finalists then the actual figures would have been released, at the moment a lot of people are annoyed that there is a precieved two tier system, if this is truly not the case why not just release the figures, is it bperhaps because they have not been figured out yet?. IMO the real reason that there is two tiers is becasue the sports council insisted on some sort of measured performance.