So Portlaoise GAA are taking the Laois County Board to the DRA intent on smashing the Rural to Urban Transfer Agreement which is in place. Surprised this hasn't come up on here yet. A massive step by the town giant. What's it all about?
Can anyone clarify this agreement to general board?
Laois Gaa Bylaws 2012...Is this challange connected to possible transfers from Portlaoise to other clubs in the county if the parent is from that other club....or have they an eye on some one from another club within the county....just asking. 8) :P
Transfers Committee. It shall consist of: Chairperson who shall be a County Committee Officer, and five other suitable personnel all of whom shall be nominated by the County Chairman and appointed by the County Committee.
• i. It shall process all applications for Transfer and Declarations within the county and make recommendations to the County Committee whose decisions shall be final. An aggrieved player shall have the right to a hearing at the meeting of the County Committee where the final decision is to be made.
• ii. A Club or Independent Teams Catchment Area shall be defined as within the Parish and within the County boundary. The County Committee may prepare guidelines or criteria annually with exceptions to this which would assist the Transfers' Committee in its deliberations. Such Guidelines/Criteria are as in appendix 1 attached to these Bye-Laws.
• iii. There shall be two distinct Club "designations" - Urban and Rural. This will allow the Transfers Committee to distinguish between Transfers / Declarations to and from - (i) Urban to Rural Clubs, (ii) Rural to Rural Clubs and (iii) Rural to Urban Clubs.
• iv. Portlaoise GAA Club will be designated an "Urban" Club and all other Clubs in Laois will be designated "Rural".
• v. Normally, Transfers within the county shall be granted only in the event of a player moving to a new place of Permanent Residence which is within the Catchment Area of the club to which he wishes to transfer. In such cases the onus of proof of new permanent residence shall be on the applicant for transfer.
• vi. In the case of underage players their permanent address shall be taken to be the permanent address of their parents/guardians.
• vii. Requests for transfer shall not be considered unless submitted to the County Secretary before January 31st in any year. Exception : In the case of an Urban to Rural Transfer / Declaration, an application may be granted provided the player has not participated in Club Competition (including Go Games) in the year in which the Transfer / Declaration is sought.
• viii. Declarations for a player's Home Club shall be governed by the relevant rules in the current Official Guide.
As far as I know there is this strange ruling, originally brought forward by a small Junior Hurling Club, that Portlaoise would be designated an Urban Club and all other clubs in Laois would be designated Rural.
The idea was/is that normal transfer criteria is not necessary when attempting to transfer from an Urban club (Portlaoise) to a Rural club (anyone else in Laois). You did not need to be living there etc.
Also the transfer could happen at any time of the year (all other transfers needed to be completed before January 31st).
I assume Portlaoise are arguing that they are powerless to stop ANYONE transferring out of their Club to ANYWHERE whereas clubs can freely object to transfers in the opposite direction.
I hadn't heard there was an issue and the above is my sketchy understanding of the rule being discussed.
That is an absolutely crazy rule!
This partly goes back to a row a few years back between Portlaoise and some of its neighbouring clubs principally Ballyfin over players playing with the town club even though technically lived outside the parish of Portlaoise. In fairness some of the player's families came from outside the county, moved to Portlaoise urban area and then discovered they lived outside the parish boundary. There were also issues around players moving from the Heath, Park/R and Clonad to Portlaoise. In order to sort out the issue, the county board called in the clubs involved which resulted in Portlaoise giving some sort of commitment not to poach players from neighbouring clubs. I suppose now that they have got rid of the debt they are beginning to flex their muscles with the County Board. I'm practically certain that they will win their case based on the "sibling" rule. I think, whether people like it or not, parish rule is on its last legs as it's not fit for purpose in a modern secular society. All it will take is a parent with a few quid behind them to fully test the rules in a civil court.
Will be interesting to see how this pans out. We've lost 2 decent juveniles already this year to Portlaoise (under sibling rule to my knowledge). Very hard on rural clubs to keep players and club going when you're losing lads to Portlaoise.
Considering Portlaoise only have 2 adult hurling teams at present potentially rule may bring in new recruits.
Hopefully it wont be a case of Portlaoise poaching lads in the future!
Agree Parish rule also seems to be on last legs.
This is the test case. The issue is not with players leaving Portlaoise, good players don't leave Portlaoise. This is about a Club going shopping. I feel for the other Clubs in the Parish of Portlaoise, they're going to be obliterated. The gloves appear to be coming off.
Quote from: Downtheroad on May 19, 2016, 12:02:12 AM
I suppose now that they have got rid of the debt they are beginning to flex their muscles with the County Board.
Didn't realise they had got rid of their debt, that was very quick...
I'm pretty sure they haven't got rid of there debt . Love to know that source 😉
Quote from: Keyser Söze on May 18, 2016, 10:18:40 PM
As far as I know there is this strange ruling, originally brought forward by a small Junior Hurling Club, that Portlaoise would be designated an Urban Club and all other clubs in Laois would be designated Rural.
The idea was/is that normal transfer criteria is not necessary when attempting to transfer from an Urban club (Portlaoise) to a Rural club (anyone else in Laois). You did not need to be living there etc.
Also the transfer could happen at any time of the year (all other transfers needed to be completed before January 31st).
I assume Portlaoise are arguing that they are powerless to stop ANYONE transferring out of their Club to ANYWHERE whereas clubs can freely object to transfers in the opposite direction.
I hadn't heard there was an issue and the above is my sketchy understanding of the rule being discussed.
It's only on reading this back that I realise that I may not have been clear enough that the above is only my loose interpretation of the rule in question. I could be way off!
The Urban/Rural ruling was brought in about four or five years ago. There was a committee set up to review the participation levels of children in Portlaoise town in GAA, headed by the Parish Priest (Fr Byrne). Portlaoise had a representative on the committee, along with a number of other reps from clubs and in the area, and possibly a few County Board heads as well. The Urban to Rural/Rural to Urban transfer agreement was drawn up from that. Portlaoise were designated the only 'Urban' club in the county, and all other clubs are deemed 'Rural'. Anyone seeking an Urban to Rural transfer cannot have it refused.
However, anyone looking to transfer into Portlaoise (Rural to Urban) needs to meet one of the two criteria (parentage rule, recently moved into the parish) or they don't qualify. This was put in place to stop Portlaoise's habit of picking up talented juvenile players from surrounding clubs.
Portlaoise have not lost any high profile player on on the back of this ruling, and are unlikely to ever do so. What it does do is offer an avenue for players who are no longer needed or wanted by Portlaoise to continue playing football or hurling with another club, and protect the clubs in the area from poaching.
Having spoken to one of the original committee members before, he told me that the research they carried out showed that about 40% of boys under the age of 16 in Laois lived in Portlaoise town, and were, for the most part, being serviced by one club. I think that's more then enough for them to be working with, without going to the DRA to get one more. Portlaoise signed up to the agreement and gave their backing to it at the time. The problem, as I see it, is that Portlaoise were much more dominant at underage level when they actually signed up to this. Now, with the number of juvenile amalgamations, it is a more level playing field and they appear to be regressing to old habits.
Quote from: steven seagal on May 20, 2016, 10:35:03 AM
The Urban/Rural ruling was brought in about four or five years ago. There was a committee set up to review the participation levels of children in Portlaoise town in GAA, headed by the Parish Priest (Fr Byrne). Portlaoise had a representative on the committee, along with a number of other reps from clubs and in the area, and possibly a few County Board heads as well. The Urban to Rural/Rural to Urban transfer agreement was drawn up from that. Portlaoise were designated the only 'Urban' club in the county, and all other clubs are deemed 'Rural'. Anyone seeking an Urban to Rural transfer cannot have it refused.
However, anyone looking to transfer into Portlaoise (Rural to Urban) needs to meet one of the two criteria (parentage rule, recently moved into the parish) or they don't qualify. This was put in place to stop Portlaoise's habit of picking up talented juvenile players from surrounding clubs.
Portlaoise have not lost any high profile player on on the back of this ruling, and are unlikely to ever do so. What it does do is offer an avenue for players who are no longer needed or wanted by Portlaoise to continue playing football or hurling with another club, and protect the clubs in the area from poaching.
Having spoken to one of the original committee members before, he told me that the research they carried out showed that about 40% of boys under the age of 16 in Laois lived in Portlaoise town, and were, for the most part, being serviced by one club. I think that's more then enough for them to be working with, without going to the DRA to get one more. Portlaoise signed up to the agreement and gave their backing to it at the time. The problem, as I see it, is that Portlaoise were much more dominant at underage level when they actually signed up to this. Now, with the number of juvenile amalgamations, it is a more level playing field and they appear to be regressing to old habits.
In relation to above
In real numbers how many does that 40% equate to. ( we must be talking hundreds here )
How can 1 club/ team cater for the needs of so many boys.
Like in all fairness this is a crazy situation and the GAA as an organization needs to address this, when a club with huge resources can poach boys from clubs with 9 or 10 per grade.
For a town with a population of over 20,000 to have only one GAA club is not ideal. So many potential GAA players are lost as a result of this within the county as children in Portlaoise ending up choosing other sports like soccer. For a small county like Laois, who are also trying to be competitive in both codes, we could badly do greater numbers playing the game in Portlaoise. Tralee for example, is a town of similar size with at least four strong GAA clubs who all have their strongholds within the town and excellent underage structures in place.
Once the amalgamated schools open in Agnahara potentially may make some numbers for Portlaoise.
7 Primary schools (St Pauls, Scoil Mhuire, Sacred heart amalgamating into 1 junior and senior school), Gaelscoil, Educate together, Maryborough and Scoil Bríd in Knockmay/Harpurs Lane. Now I know of course may be difficult to encourage the likes of Educate together for example (no insults intended) but surely they can pool enough players from there.
Kilminchy tried founding a club years ago to my knowledge but fell apart. So second club has been tried.
If Portlaoise is to be divided, there needs to be a line drawn and the new club would have to be able to draw from it's distinct pool. Existing adult players would will wash through in 10 years. Then this new club would put it's mark on the town.
Kilminchy didn't work because it wasn't supported enough, I reckon.
Portlaoise have gone out to the country and a new club in the town could reap some rewards now. The thing is, would Portlaoise set up a training ground near the new club like they did at St Fintan's around the time of Kilminchy?
All this change though, with this County Board? I don't think so. Too much paperwork.
How to manage the development of football/Hurling in Portlaoise is at this stage an almost intractable challenge. The Kilminchy experiment a few years back was a miserable failure and there is no reason why another start up club will succeed. I imagine one of the main reasons why Kilminchy failed was lack of help on the ground something that is in the case with the majority of clubs I know. If Portlaoise GAA did not split over the move to Rathleague then it will never split and the prospect of a new club that could challenge the town is a pipedream. To counterbalance Portlaoise, the Co Board needs to stand full square behind The Heath, Ratheniska and Clonad in order to protect them from losing players. If Portlaoise win DRA case, it's likely to be game over for the other clubs in the catchment area. At the beginning of this year, Clonad had a very promising u12 team which has been decimated due to transfers to the town and i'm reliably informed are now the best players on Portlaoise team. This is an example of the so called "Parentage rule" favouring the stronger clubs rather than weaker clubs which many people had originally envisaged.
This is Portlaoise spotting that they have a problem, now, at underage. The simple fact is that they're not winning - AT ANY AGE - and what's going to feed to their adult teams are young lads who are used to losing.
For Portlaoise to go to the DRA is unreal for a club with access to 25% of the county's population, but there you are. Don't let fair-play stand in the way of success. They've spotted a gap and they're plugging it. If the CB was as proactive, county would be a whole lot better off.
I hope the DRA find against them - for the greater good.
I'm glad the last two posts were made, I was despairing at the lads on here. Divide Portlaoise? Portlaoise are trying to recruit readymade talent, like f**k they'll allow themselves be split. A Portlaoise man has even removed himself from a committee on the County Board to devote his time to tbis DRA appeal. They're playing hardball now lads, the gloves are off.
Did Clonad/Park Ratheniska withdraw from U16 hurling in 2015 and allow their players seek permission to play with Portlaoise as isolated players?
Clonad had a handful of players and looked to join up with neighbouring clubs who turned them down. In the end, Portlaoise took them in. Technically, it could be argued that they were issues with the constitution of the Portlaoise u16 hurling team in 2015 but no one challenged it.
Quote from: Downtheroad on May 22, 2016, 10:56:18 PM
Clonad had a handful of players and looked to join up with neighbouring clubs who turned them down. In the end, Portlaoise took them in. Technically, it could be argued that they were issues with the constitution of the Portlaoise u16 hurling team in 2015 but no one challenged it.
I'm not sure that's fair on Portlaoise.
Clonad hadn't enough players to field an U16 team on their own. They had a handful of players who wanted to hurl at U16 level and they were entitled to seek transfers as Isolated Players.
In the end only 2 actually made the Portlaoise U16 team. I don't believe there was any issue with the constitution of said team.
My point wasn't questioning the constitution of the team.
Rather, I was wondering was this a bit of opening that some stronger players would jump on?
Didn't Park Ratheniska have an U16 football team last year?
Quote from: Keyser Söze on May 22, 2016, 11:44:44 PM
My point wasn't questioning the constitution of the team.
Rather, I was wondering was this a bit of opening that some stronger players would jump on?
No the players want to play for their respective club (or clubs as many play with both Clonad and Heath) using Portlaoise to play competition where no other viable solution was available. The grass isn't always greener on the other side!
I had heard about Clonad losing those two under 12 hurlers. I think that's most unfair. I've great admiration for Portlaoise and how they go about their business. Always play a good brand of football and hurling.
I think there is actually an onus on the County Board to put the structures in place for a second club in the town. Not a half arsed effort like Kilminchy was. It was done in Ennis to great effect (Banner Óg or some name like that).
Too many young lads falling by the wayside in Portlaoise that other clubs would kill to have. Dont get me started listing names of county minors and under 21's who don't play at all now. Now this is not Portlaoise bashing. I understand they can't cater for them all or indeed compel them to stay playing. And a second club in the town won't solve everything either.
But it needs to be tried. Urgently.
This is not about Portlaoise bashing. When they were on 4/5 in a row, people were saying that it was up to the rest of the county to catch up with them. Now that that's happening, Portlaoise are crying the poor mouth and going about this in a ugly way?
Competitive club scene? Screw that! We want 20-in-a-row!!!!
Going to DRA costs money, does it not? It's good to see that Portlaoise rid themselves of (most of) their onerous debt so they could plough their funds into legal costs to allow them to pillage other clubs. There is a difference between legally correct and justice. Let's hope the two align in this case.
Quote from: Dave like the tv channel on May 24, 2016, 09:29:09 AM
Going to DRA costs money, does it not? It's good to see that Portlaoise rid themselves of (most of) their onerous debt so they could plough their funds into legal costs to allow them to pillage other clubs. There is a difference between legally correct and justice. Let's hope the two align in this case.
€1500 to go to DRA for hearing.
June 1st. The date when the GAA will be forced to decide if a club with one of the largest picks in the country should be allowed hand pick talent from the rest of the clubs in the parish, and most likely further afield.
Pack up the tents if this is allowed.
What's the basis of their argument? Anyone know?
How likely are they to win?
The person in question seeking to transfer from Park Ratheniska to Portlaoise. The person in question already has a sibling in the Portlaoise club. Person looking for transfer hasn't played with club they're transferring from for over a year to my knowledge. Went to school in area when younger. I hope that's all correct. Don't want to name names on this thread.
Unfortunate situation for the person
€1500 is many ways the starting point. If I'm not mistaken, the DRA is like the courts where a party could get caught for costs if they lose. On a strict interpretation of the rule, Portlaoise shouldn't win but I know of a prominent Portlaoise member who likes to remind ordinary mortals that Portlaoise don't lose DRA cases. The reality is that a razor sharp legal mind could drive a bus through the official guide and local byelaws. Over the years, our local Co Board has often tried to use its discretion in granting contentious transfers in what look like hardship cases. While this is well meaning, the problem with discretion is that it leads to precedent and precedent is what is used by the lawyers to undermine the decisions made. I imagine if Portlaoise win, we might as well throw out the byelaws which were approved by Croke Park in the first instance.
Quote from: Helix on May 26, 2016, 01:04:49 PM
The person in question seeking to transfer from Park Ratheniska to Portlaoise. The person in question already has a sibling in the Portlaoise club. Person looking for transfer hasn't played with club they're transferring from for over a year to my knowledge. Went to school in area when younger. I hope that's all correct. Don't want to name names on this thread.
Unfortunate situation for the person
Thanks. Yeah, no names required.
Quote from: Downtheroad on May 26, 2016, 01:17:27 PM
€1500 is many ways the starting point. If I'm not mistaken, the DRA is like the courts where a party could get caught for costs if they lose. On a strict interpretation of the rule, Portlaoise shouldn't win but I know of a prominent Portlaoise member who likes to remind ordinary mortals that Portlaoise don't lose DRA cases. The reality is that a razor sharp legal mind could drive a bus through the official guide and local byelaws. Over the years, our local Co Board has often tried to use its discretion in granting contentious transfers in what look like hardship cases. While this is well meaning, the problem with discretion is that it leads to precedent and precedent is what is used by the lawyers to undermine the decisions made. I imagine if Portlaoise win, we might as well throw out the byelaws which were approved by Croke Park in the first instance.
Are the results published? Are decisions made on the night of the case?
Quote from: Dave like the tv channel on May 26, 2016, 03:32:24 PM
Quote from: Downtheroad on May 26, 2016, 01:17:27 PM
€1500 is many ways the starting point. If I'm not mistaken, the DRA is like the courts where a party could get caught for costs if they lose. On a strict interpretation of the rule, Portlaoise shouldn't win but I know of a prominent Portlaoise member who likes to remind ordinary mortals that Portlaoise don't lose DRA cases. The reality is that a razor sharp legal mind could drive a bus through the official guide and local byelaws. Over the years, our local Co Board has often tried to use its discretion in granting contentious transfers in what look like hardship cases. While this is well meaning, the problem with discretion is that it leads to precedent and precedent is what is used by the lawyers to undermine the decisions made. I imagine if Portlaoise win, we might as well throw out the byelaws which were approved by Croke Park in the first instance.
Are the results published? Are decisions made on the night of the case?
Try the following http://www.sportsdra.ie/ Usually there is some delay before decisions appear on website.
Any news from the hearing?
Tomorrow night I believe.
The fatal night. Portlaoise travel with what I am assured is a THIRTY FIVE PAGE dossier. This is no more about one chap than Nowlan Park was about seats.
Quote from: Bueller on June 01, 2016, 07:42:26 PM
The fatal night. Portlaoise travel with what I am assured is a THIRTY FIVE PAGE dossier. This is no more about one chap than Nowlan Park was about seats.
Of course not. It's a test case before they push open the floodgates. Portlaoise have lost their dominance at underage level and by God, they're not going to let what happened after the 83 team got old, happen again.
They've already pulled one lad in from PR, another lad in from Ballyfin. The gates are being pushed open and I hope the DRA find against them.
When Portlaoise were at #4 or #5, lads around the county were saying that it was up to other teams to catch-up, rather than drag Portlaoise back. Ballyroan Abbey are doing it. Graigue, Paul's and Port are doing it at underage and Portlaoise have decided that that's not ok.
Quote from: Dave like the tv channel on June 02, 2016, 09:54:05 AM
Quote from: Bueller on June 01, 2016, 07:42:26 PM
The fatal night. Portlaoise travel with what I am assured is a THIRTY FIVE PAGE dossier. This is no more about one chap than Nowlan Park was about seats.
Of course not. It's a test case before they push open the floodgates. Portlaoise have lost their dominance at underage level and by God, they're not going to let what happened after the 83 team got old, happen again.
They've already pulled one lad in from PR, another lad in from Ballyfin. The gates are being pushed open and I hope the DRA find against them.
When Portlaoise were at #4 or #5, lads around the county were saying that it was up to other teams to catch-up, rather than drag Portlaoise back. Ballyroan Abbey are doing it. Graigue, Paul's and Port are doing it at underage and Portlaoise have decided that that's not ok.
Portlaoise WIN their case. They are now free to go shopping in any Club they wish inside the parish, from any age. That'll put manners on all those cheeky clubs who thought they could try and challenge them. So long lads.
Exactly what is the finding of the DRA? Surely Portlaoise can't just cherry pick the best lads from Clonad, Heath and P/R?
Quote from: Downtheroad on May 26, 2016, 01:17:27 PM
€1500 is many ways the starting point. If I'm not mistaken, the DRA is like the courts where a party could get caught for costs if they lose. On a strict interpretation of the rule, Portlaoise shouldn't win but I know of a prominent Portlaoise member who likes to remind ordinary mortals that Portlaoise don't lose DRA cases. The reality is that a razor sharp legal mind could drive a bus through the official guide and local byelaws. Over the years, our local Co Board has often tried to use its discretion in granting contentious transfers in what look like hardship cases. While this is well meaning, the problem with discretion is that it leads to precedent and precedent is what is used by the lawyers to undermine the decisions made. I imagine if Portlaoise win, we might as well throw out the byelaws which were approved by Croke Park in the first instance.
Here is the preliminary report on website: This was an application against a decision by the respondents to refuse a transfer of the applicant to Portlaoise GAA club. The application was successful and the transfer sanctioned with immediate effect. The DRA Tribunal chaired by Colm O'Rourke (with legal members David Nohilly and Arran Dowling Hussey) reached a majority verdict and held that, although the respondents at all times acted fairly towards the claimant, the application should nevertheless be deemed successful on the ground that there was an anomaly and ambiguity in the existing Laois bye-laws relating to transfers within the Portlaoise catchment area. The Tribunal further directed that the Laois County Board, through their county committee and convention and usual procedures, work to provide clarity or amend this aspect of their transfer byelaws. Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts. The full written award will follow by the end of the month.
Quote from: Downtheroad on June 02, 2016, 11:39:44 PM
Quote from: Downtheroad on May 26, 2016, 01:17:27 PM
€1500 is many ways the starting point. If I'm not mistaken, the DRA is like the courts where a party could get caught for costs if they lose. On a strict interpretation of the rule, Portlaoise shouldn't win but I know of a prominent Portlaoise member who likes to remind ordinary mortals that Portlaoise don't lose DRA cases. The reality is that a razor sharp legal mind could drive a bus through the official guide and local byelaws. Over the years, our local Co Board has often tried to use its discretion in granting contentious transfers in what look like hardship cases. While this is well meaning, the problem with discretion is that it leads to precedent and precedent is what is used by the lawyers to undermine the decisions made. I imagine if Portlaoise win, we might as well throw out the byelaws which were approved by Croke Park in the first instance.
Here is the preliminary report on website: This was an application against a decision by the respondents to refuse a transfer of the applicant to Portlaoise GAA club. The application was successful and the transfer sanctioned with immediate effect. The DRA Tribunal chaired by Colm O'Rourke (with legal members David Nohilly and Arran Dowling Hussey) reached a majority verdict and held that, although the respondents at all times acted fairly towards the claimant, the application should nevertheless be deemed successful on the ground that there was an anomaly and ambiguity in the existing Laois bye-laws relating to transfers within the Portlaoise catchment area. The Tribunal further directed that the Laois County Board, through their county committee and convention and usual procedures, work to provide clarity or amend this aspect of their transfer byelaws. Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts. The full written award will follow by the end of the month.
This is an example of the bus been driven through the byelaws. Nevertheless I await the full decision before commenting further on the facts of the case.
Quote from: SCFC on June 02, 2016, 11:35:14 PM
Exactly what is the finding of the DRA? Surely Portlaoise can't just cherry pick the best lads from Clonad, Heath and P/R?
Don't worry, they're only going to take the good ones, they'll leave the average ones. The same as they do with dozens and dozens of young children in the town already. After seeing the U14 League result between Clonad and Portlaoise A last night, I'd be worried this morning if I were a sash man. Time to go shopping again.
Not much wrong with their U-14s,
QuotePortlaoise GAA 9 - 13
Stradbally Parish Gaels 1 - 4
Quote from: Junior Ex Laoistalk on June 03, 2016, 02:38:39 PM
Not much wrong with their U-14s,
QuotePortlaoise GAA 9 - 13
Stradbally Parish Gaels 1 - 4
You sure?
Ballyroan 6-27
Portlaoise 3-3
Port 5-14
Portlaoise 3-3
Clonad/ Ratheniska beat Portlaoise 7-16 to 0-3 in the u14 A hurling league last night. Why would anyone in Clonad WANT to go to Portlaoise to hurl??!
Quote from: burdizzo on June 03, 2016, 04:23:55 PM
Clonad/ Ratheniska beat Portlaoise 7-16 to 0-3 in the u14 A hurling league last night. Why would anyone in Clonad would WANT to go to Portlaoise to hurl??!
I think that's the part people are missing. Players have to WANT to move. In the case that Portlaoise took, the individual WANTED to move. It's all well and good Portlaoise allegedly 'wanting' all these lads, but they themselves will actually have to want to go as well.
Folks
Here is the full report on the DRA case.
http://www.sportsdra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DRA15-2016-Award.pdf
Michael Bolton,acting chairman of the hurling board??? is this Michael Bolton from Graiguecullen???
Quote from: Downtheroad on July 15, 2016, 01:39:25 PM
Folks
Here is the full report on the DRA case.
http://www.sportsdra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DRA15-2016-Award.pdf
"BL"? There are barristers are these meetings?
Basically, there's a loophole where the transfer happens within the parish?
They're citing
contra perferentum, yet it was Portlaoise's idea to come up with this rural/urban rule, was it not? Weren't Portlaoise
Quote from: Faugheen on July 15, 2016, 04:13:29 PM
Michael Bolton,acting chairman of the hurling board??? is this Michael Bolton from Graiguecullen???
HC in that document means hearing committee. Mick is acting chairman of the Laois hearing committee.
It's interesting that the only legal professional in attendance agreed with Laois County Board. And he felt strongly enough to include a personal piece at the end.
Is that normal?
They agree with the Co. Board but also agree that they have to get the wording right and insert an amendment to the rule. (Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts.)
If they get it right this can't happen again as this case will not treated as a precedent. It's all down to the Co. Board now ...
Quote from: Junior Ex Laoistalk on July 15, 2016, 09:08:07 PM
They agree with the Co. Board but also agree that they have to get the wording right and insert an amendment to the rule. (Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts.)
If they get it right this can't happen again as this case will not treated as a precedent. It's all down to the Co. Board now ...
There is more than just this loophole to be fixed. Here's one obvious one: A player from Portlaoise parish who has opted to play 1st club for Ballyfin or /Colt under school rule now wants to move to Portlaoise Gaa club without moving residence isn't covered either.
Quote from: Junior Ex Laoistalk on July 15, 2016, 09:08:07 PM
They agree with the Co. Board but also agree that they have to get the wording right and insert an amendment to the rule. (Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts.)
If they get it right this can't happen again as this case will not treated as a precedent. It's all down to the Co. Board now ...
Did the BL not state at the end that he didn't agree with the decision and that he was of the opinion that Laois GAA were correct or did I read it wrong?
No, you read it right. The BL agreed with the Co. Board but the tribunal had to agree to the transfer because of the loophole and stated that the Co. Board should amend the transfer byelaws.
(The Tribunal further advises that the Laois County Board, through their county committee and convention and usual procedures, work to provide clarity or amend this aspect of their transfer byelaws. Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts.)
the BL's personal note is of zero relevance when majority rule dictates with DRA. The Laois Executive have been told what they have for by law as of now is not good enough and they have been ordered to change.
most disturbing....the tab for the episode has to be picked up by Laois GAA, no change out of 2 grand or more I would imagine.
I have nil to do with Portlaoise, and from the tone of this thread most posters seem anti the town club. what I would point out is that Portlaoise GAA in fairness are entitled to protect their position...the bye law almost expects them to lose loads of players and not to gain any.....we all know deep down, that was the intention.
at a future date, we could easily see the demographic of an Irish town such as Portlaoise become similar to those of former industrial towns in places like Yorkshire and Lancashire........the immediate inner town mile radius or so becomes an immigrant ghetto and the locals are forced further and further out to the suburbs....remember the majority of these immigrants will not play GAA, it will in fact be a GAA wasteland.
this is slowly happening in a number of irish towns...in the case of portlaoise, a couple of miles out into the suburbs and as of now you are into park, heath, clonad, colt, ballyfin areas.
I cannot blame portlaoise gaa for taking measures to protect their future in the circumstances.
Quote from: oneflewoverthecuckoonest on July 16, 2016, 12:42:01 AM
the BL's personal note is of zero relevance when majority rule dictates with DRA. The Laois Executive have been told what they have for by law as of now is not good enough and they have been ordered to change.
most disturbing....the tab for the episode has to be picked up by Laois GAA, no change out of 2 grand or more I would imagine.
I have nil to do with Portlaoise, and from the tone of this thread most posters seem anti the town club. what I would point out is that Portlaoise GAA in fairness are entitled to protect their position...the bye law almost expects them to lose loads of players and not to gain any.....we all know deep down, that was the intention.
at a future date, we could easily see the demographic of an Irish town such as Portlaoise become similar to those of former industrial towns in places like Yorkshire and Lancashire........the immediate inner town mile radius or so becomes an immigrant ghetto and the locals are forced further and further out to the suburbs....remember the majority of these immigrants will not play GAA, it will in fact be a GAA wasteland.
this is slowly happening in a number of irish towns...in the case of portlaoise, a couple of miles out into the suburbs and as of now you are into park, heath, clonad, colt, ballyfin areas.
I cannot blame portlaoise gaa for taking measures to protect their future in the circumstances.
You paint quite a post apocalyptic picture. Should we start eating the brains of the dead now? Or is this going to be just like The Wire where the entire Main Street will become a ghetto for the blacks to be shooting crack outside the courthouse?
I actually think he's right.
Quote from: Junior Ex Laoistalk on July 16, 2016, 12:38:15 AM
No, you read it right. The BL agreed with the Co. Board but the tribunal had to agree to the transfer because of the loophole and stated that the Co. Board should amend the transfer byelaws.
(The Tribunal further advises that the Laois County Board, through their county committee and convention and usual procedures, work to provide clarity or amend this aspect of their transfer byelaws. Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts.)
Tribunal didn't have to agree but it did on a majority of 2 to 1. If another Tribunal was set up it could have came up with a different result which shows you the Russian roulette nature of the legal process. I don't disagree with the outcome on technical grounds but Portlaoise have been somewhat disingenuous here as Portlaoise GAA club either came up or agreed with the original wording which was designed at the time to ensure that Portlaoise could avail of the parentage rule for players living outside the parish.
I'm not suggesting that Laois County Board can just ignore the ruling or the need to tighten the loophole.
I'm merely stating that it's hard to be too critical of them in this instance. They came up with a relatively progressive bye law that protects the rights of those with an allegiance to Portlaoise to play with them, while also protecting the rural clubs in Portlaoise Parish.
This rule has more or less worked for years.
When it is challenged a BL comes to the conclusion that the rule is fine. He is over ruled by two non legal professionals.
It's luck as much as anything else here & it's not a problem that LCB could really have foreseen.
I'm not anti Portlaoise, but there certainly has to be some measure in place to at least place obstacles in the path of any player wishing to move from any rural club in Laois to Portlaoise, particularly from one in Portlaoise Parish.
Quote from: Keyser Söze on July 16, 2016, 10:18:16 AM
I'm not suggesting that Laois County Board can just ignore the ruling or the need to tighten the loophole.
I'm merely stating that it's hard to be too critical of them in this instance. They came up with a relatively progressive bye law that protects the rights of those with an allegiance to Portlaoise to play with them, while also protecting the rural clubs in Portlaoise Parish.
This rule has more or less worked for years.
When it is challenged a BL comes to the conclusion that the rule is fine. He is over ruled by two non legal professionals.
It's luck as much as anything else here & it's not a problem that LCB could really have foreseen.
I'm not anti Portlaoise, but there certainly has to be some measure in place to at least place obstacles in the path of any player wishing to move from any rural club in Laois to Portlaoise, particularly from one in Portlaoise Parish.
Don't know about Colm O'Rourke but the other member is a legal professional as far as I recall. He is also experienced in these matters as he previously adjudicated in the "Dermot Connolly" case. If anything looking at the 2 cases he is consistent in his decision making.
Quote from: Downtheroad on July 16, 2016, 09:58:46 AM
Quote from: Junior Ex Laoistalk on July 16, 2016, 12:38:15 AM
No, you read it right. The BL agreed with the Co. Board but the tribunal had to agree to the transfer because of the loophole and stated that the Co. Board should amend the transfer byelaws.
(The Tribunal further advises that the Laois County Board, through their county committee and convention and usual procedures, work to provide clarity or amend this aspect of their transfer byelaws. Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts.)
Tribunal didn't have to agree but it did on a majority of 2 to 1. If another Tribunal was set up it could have came up with a different result which shows you the Russian roulette nature of the legal process. I don't disagree with the outcome on technical grounds but Portlaoise have been somewhat disingenuous here as Portlaoise GAA club either came up or agreed with the original wording which was designed at the time to ensure that Portlaoise could avail of the parentage rule for players living outside the parish.
Could NOT avail?
That's what I said in an earlier post. Portlaoise were involved in the rule being drawn up. They've now challenged the letter of the rule, which is contrary to the spirit of the rule. How was that ignored when this ruling was made?
It's the same as the SFC fiasco. The clubs agreed to the process of the championship, yet pushed against that when the 'wrong' clubs were in relegation.
Portlaoise have railroaded Laois GAA and the DRA.
Someone posted up a result from an U14 League game recently between CPR and PL, the result being a big win for CPR.
Anyone want to post up the result when a few of the recent signings were back?
Quote from: Bueller on July 20, 2016, 08:20:41 AM
Portlaoise have railroaded Laois GAA and the DRA.
Someone posted up a result from an U14 League game recently between CPR and PL, the result being a big win for CPR.
Anyone want to post up the result when a few of the recent signings were back?
What was it?
Don't know who CPR are but is this the result you were talking about?
30/05/2016
Portlaoise 9-13
Stradbally Parish Gaels 1-4
Clonad/Park Ratheniska 5.8 - 5.10 Portlaoise
I'm sure it left a sour taste in the mouths of a lot in Clonad or particularly Ratheniska, a former PR player was their main scorer.
At full strength they're arguably now best of the rest in Laois Hurling at U14 level this year, Abbeyleix should have 6+ to spare no matter who they face.
The question now will be how many young GAA players join Portlaoise as their 'first club' who might in previous years have gone to one of the other parish clubs. This looks like the battle line for me now; The Portlaoise nursery system has grown massively (for boys and girls to be fair) over the last year or so and I can only see that continuing.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Portlaoise have their house in order and put correct procedures in place from underage right through to senior then with the sheer number of eligible boys, there is little stopping them carving up Laois championships a la Dublin in the Leinster Football. We talk about Dublin's population advantage but one need only look at the new schools being built in Portlaoise and wonder how some small clubs will ever be able to consistently compete.
Might take a little longer in hurling but one wouldn't be surprised to see them churn out serious underage teams over the next decade or so.
Surely players can't have transfered mid season?!
You see this was my point. Portlaoise have started doing massive work at underage, and about time as some would say as they have simply allowed it happen previously and that worked. That's great, they should, as every other club should.
The issue is, they've decided this isn't enough, and have also begun scouting. They railroaded this transfer through, the DRA legal counsel went so far as to say he believed Laois GAA's rules were in order, the document shows that, yet the transfer was still granted on 'fair play' or such like grounds. They've kicked in the door, a precedent is set, and all bets are off.
Oh and who footed the bill for this little trip up to the capital? Laois GAA.
Thanks and good night.
Quote from: merman on July 28, 2016, 12:27:25 AM
Clonad/Park Ratheniska 5.8 - 5.10 Portlaoise
I'm sure it left a sour taste in the mouths of a lot in Clonad or particularly Ratheniska, a former PR player was their main scorer.
At full strength they're arguably now best of the rest in Laois Hurling at U14 level this year, Abbeyleix should have 6+ to spare no matter who they face.
The question now will be how many young GAA players join Portlaoise as their 'first club' who might in previous years have gone to one of the other parish clubs. This looks like the battle line for me now; The Portlaoise nursery system has grown massively (for boys and girls to be fair) over the last year or so and I can only see that continuing.
The simple fact of the matter is that if Portlaoise have their house in order and put correct procedures in place from underage right through to senior then with the sheer number of eligible boys, there is little stopping them carving up Laois championships a la Dublin in the Leinster Football. We talk about Dublin's population advantage but one need only look at the new schools being built in Portlaoise and wonder how some small clubs will ever be able to consistently compete.
Might take a little longer in hurling but one wouldn't be surprised to see them churn out serious underage teams over the next decade or so.
How many underage teams in each grade do they have ?
Quote from: merman on July 28, 2016, 12:27:25 AM
Clonad/Park Ratheniska 5.8 - 5.10 Portlaoise
I'm sure it left a sour taste in the mouths of a lot in Clonad or particularly Ratheniska, a former PR player was their main scorer.
Don't know if one new player can explain the difference between League and Championship results for Portlaoise U14 hurlers. They must not have had a full squad for League. According to Laois GAA website they lost to Clonad by 6-17 to 0-3 in the League and then beat them by two points as above a few weeks later in Championship.
Also according to the website, they lost to Clough Ballacolla by 0-13 to 0-04 in League and then beat them by 14-10 (yes 14 goals !) to 3-06 in first round of Championship. Maybe the 14 goals is a mistake on the website, but even allowing for League vs Championship, the difference in results is massive.
Quote from: OTF on July 28, 2016, 09:31:17 AM
How many underage teams in each grade do they have ?
I can't answer that OTF. I think they have A and B in all grades but I'm not sure.
My point is different anyway; I anticipate that when say their current U6s come through in 8 years time; they will be picking from a pool far far larger than what they currently do at U14 level.
I might add that I don't actually begrudge Portlaoise any success, particularly in hurling where I feel they are massively underachieving. They have contributed fine people to Laois GAA and a stronger juvenile set-up in Portlaoise will evenutually, I hope, feed into stronger county teams.
I'd have concerns if the Urban/Rural Transfer Ruling was obliterated but that's it.
I also believe that Laois GAA will close any loop hole between now and Convention.
Quote from: Home Boys Home on July 28, 2016, 11:33:53 AM
Quote from: merman on July 28, 2016, 12:27:25 AM
Clonad/Park Ratheniska 5.8 - 5.10 Portlaoise
I'm sure it left a sour taste in the mouths of a lot in Clonad or particularly Ratheniska, a former PR player was their main scorer.
Don't know if one new player can explain the difference between League and Championship results for Portlaoise U14 hurlers. They must not have had a full squad for League. According to Laois GAA website they lost to Clonad by 6-17 to 0-3 in the League and then beat them by two points as above a few weeks later in Championship.
Also according to the website, they lost to Clough Ballacolla by 0-13 to 0-04 in League and then beat them by 14-10 (yes 14 goals !) to 3-06 in first round of Championship. Maybe the 14 goals is a mistake on the website, but even allowing for League vs Championship, the difference in results is massive.
I agree. There's obviously more to this than one player but the particularly strong player who has transferred from Ratheniska was injured through the spring and into the early summer.
Nice big win tonight for the town, beating Ballyroan/Abbey 8-12 to 4-6. The DRA case already paying dividends.
Oh as the town, goes marching in...
Ballyroan not the team to beat at U16.
Quote from: Dave like the tv channel on August 31, 2016, 11:02:01 AM
Ballyroan not the team to beat at U16.
True. St Paul's or Port will be the other finalists and Portlaoise won't win that by much if at all.
Portlaoise won't let what happened to the 80s team happen again. They dropped the ball and that team got old and retired. Portlaoise were left floudering for a few years. Their debt forgiveness and recruitment policy will see to that.
The only difference is that back in the 80s/90s, there were other good teams about. Joes, Port and Stradbally were all in with a shot at the title. Nowadays, Portlaoise must be loving the fact that their rebuilding can be done at a low ebb for club football in Laois. No-one is capable of winning against them.
Quote from: Bueller on August 30, 2016, 10:01:23 PM
Nice big win tonight for the town, beating Ballyroan/Abbey 8-12 to 4-6. The DRA case already paying dividends.
Oh as the town, goes marching in...
In the nice big win for the town statement ,Dra case paying dividends no player that wasn't with them all along played. The chap that the case was about hasn't played for 2 months after doing his cruciate with laois. Hope for the chap himself that he dose get to play never minding which club
Quote from: SCFC on August 31, 2016, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: Dave like the tv channel on August 31, 2016, 11:02:01 AM
Ballyroan not the team to beat at U16.
True. St Paul's or Port will be the other finalists and Portlaoise won't win that by much if at all.
1-11 to 0-6 win for Paul's over Portlaoise yesterday.
Quote from: SCFC on September 18, 2016, 05:40:29 PM
Quote from: SCFC on August 31, 2016, 11:58:12 AM
Quote from: Dave like the tv channel on August 31, 2016, 11:02:01 AM
Ballyroan not the team to beat at U16.
True. St Paul's or Port will be the other finalists and Portlaoise won't win that by much if at all.
1-11 to 0-6 win for Paul's over Portlaoise yesterday.
Poor enough game St Pauls/Rock have some classy players but not as many as people might think. On the evidence of yesterday, I doubt many of the Portlaoise players will make the step up. Nevertheless one of the their corner was impressive as he was very gutsy.
Poor first half I'll give you that but St Paul's were a different animal in the second half. They couldn't do anything right in the first half and kicked near a dozen wides but showed how good they were after half time & outscored Portlaoise 1-10 to 0-02. Portlaoise are a decent side but are dependent on 1/2 big players, St Pauls have strength in each line which won it for them in the end
Portlaoise pull a double cross at last nights Convention and get their way for another year of cherry picking of neighboring talent. Transfer by laws, what transfer by laws?
Quote from: Bueller on December 06, 2016, 02:20:58 PM
Portlaoise pull a double cross at last nights Convention and get their way for another year of cherry picking of neighboring talent. Transfer by laws, what transfer by laws?
ffs. This was to be sorted this year. They will have some shopping list I'd say. How did the CB not get the loophole closed off? Are they more useless than even I thought?
Not picking sides here but Portlaoise are not alone in cherry picking...i know of one junior football club who had their best players cherry picked...
Quote from: Bueller on December 06, 2016, 02:20:58 PM
Portlaoise pull a double cross at last nights Convention and get their way for another year of cherry picking of neighboring talent. Transfer by laws, what transfer by laws?
So is it open season in Portlaoise Parish at this stage,any more details of what exactly happened?
There's a by law in place in the clubs in the Portlaoise parish that no person can transfer to a club within the Portlaoise parish. Transfer is automatically objected by class clubs.
Quote from: Helix on December 06, 2016, 05:55:47 PM
There's a by law in place in the clubs in the Portlaoise parish that no person can transfer to a club within the Portlaoise parish. Transfer is automatically objected by class clubs.
The same by law that was broken by the DRA a few months ago.
Quote from: Helix on December 06, 2016, 08:29:55 PM
The only reason they won its case was the objection to transfer was put in through telephone than written form to county board. Didn't stand up when the case came. Had it been objected in written form they would have lost.
I don't know where you are getting your information but I bet they had a good giggle as you swallowed that.
Quote from: Helix on December 06, 2016, 08:29:55 PM
The only reason they won its case was the objection to transfer was put in through telephone than written form to county board. Didn't stand up when the case came. Had it been objected in written form they would have lost.
Factually incorrect there Helix
http://www.sportsdra.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DRA15-2016-Award.pdf
Smart move deleting your post Helix. That's the danger of places like this, fellas post stuff like its gospel and others believing it to be fact.
That was the risk Bueller. Have Portlaoise transferred people in? My initial point that clubs in the Portlaoise area (Heath Park Clonad and Portlaoise) have rule in place now where transfer within area is automatically rejected.
Quote from: Helix on December 07, 2016, 02:05:22 PM
That was the risk Bueller. Have Portlaoise transferred people in? My initial point that clubs in the Portlaoise area (Heath Park Clonad and Portlaoise) have rule in place now where transfer within area is automatically rejected.
A rule that could be adopted in every parish would stop alot of poaching if actually enforced
Quote from: Helix on December 07, 2016, 02:05:22 PM
That was the risk Bueller. Have Portlaoise transferred people in? My initial point that clubs in the Portlaoise area (Heath Park Clonad and Portlaoise) have rule in place now where transfer within area is automatically rejected.
Helix your doing some amount of ducking and diving on this.
Portlaoise have damn well facilitated the transfer of players into their club,taking a case all the way to the DRA last year over an u16 which cost them over €2k.
Oh and its Portlaoise Parish not area,your mentioning of an Area would imply theres a grey area with regard to residency when there so patently isnt...
Quote from: clonadmad on December 07, 2016, 05:46:44 PM
Quote from: Helix on December 07, 2016, 02:05:22 PM
That was the risk Bueller. Have Portlaoise transferred people in? My initial point that clubs in the Portlaoise area (Heath Park Clonad and Portlaoise) have rule in place now where transfer within area is automatically rejected.
Helix your doing some amount of ducking and diving on this.
Portlaoise have damn well facilitated the transfer of players into their club,taking a case all the way to the DRA last year over an u16 which cost them over €2k.
Oh and its Portlaoise Parish not area,your mentioning of an Area would imply theres a grey area with regard to residency when there so patently isnt...
Fair point clonad I'll leave it at this point and say no more👍🏻
Quote from: clonadmad on December 07, 2016, 05:46:44 PM
Quote from: Helix on December 07, 2016, 02:05:22 PM
That was the risk Bueller. Have Portlaoise transferred people in? My initial point that clubs in the Portlaoise area (Heath Park Clonad and Portlaoise) have rule in place now where transfer within area is automatically rejected.
Helix your doing some amount of ducking and diving on this.
Portlaoise have damn well facilitated the transfer of players into their club,taking a case all the way to the DRA last year over an u16 which cost them over €2k.
Oh and its Portlaoise Parish not area,your mentioning of an Area would imply theres a grey area with regard to residency when there so patently isnt...
And to clarify, it cost Laois GAA, i.e. Our Clubs, 2k. The same clubs whose delegates sat on their hands on Monday night and left the status quo in place for the same thing to happen again now the precedent has been set in the DRA. As things stand, Portlaoise can tap up anyone they like, have it refused, take it to the DRA, have Laois GAA pick up the tab and get their man.
Quote from: Bueller on December 06, 2016, 02:20:58 PM
Portlaoise pull a double cross at last nights Convention and get their way for another year of cherry picking of neighboring talent. Transfer by laws, what transfer by laws?
What exactly happened? Can you be more specific? Thanks in advance!
Quote from: SCFC on December 08, 2016, 11:13:09 PM
Quote from: Bueller on December 06, 2016, 02:20:58 PM
Portlaoise pull a double cross at last nights Convention and get their way for another year of cherry picking of neighboring talent. Transfer by laws, what transfer by laws?
What exactly happened? Can you be more specific? Thanks in advance!
Anyone at the meeting will back this up
* New by law agreed by Clubs in question brought to floor
* Portlaoise claim wording different to what agreed. Others adamant this was what agreed upon.
* Law put to floor
* Remaining clubs in Laois argue they aren't up to speed on what they're voting on, ask for explanation.
* Put to vote without explanation.
* New amendment refused, old broken by law remains in place, loophole still open.
Quote from: Bueller on December 09, 2016, 08:14:08 AM
Quote from: SCFC on December 08, 2016, 11:13:09 PM
Quote from: Bueller on December 06, 2016, 02:20:58 PM
Portlaoise pull a double cross at last nights Convention and get their way for another year of cherry picking of neighboring talent. Transfer by laws, what transfer by laws?
What exactly happened? Can you be more specific? Thanks in advance!
Anyone at the meeting will back this up
* New by law agreed by Clubs in question brought to floor
* Portlaoise claim wording different to what agreed. Others adamant this was what agreed upon.
* Law put to floor
* Remaining clubs in Laois argue they aren't up to speed on what they're voting on, ask for explanation.
* Put to vote without explanation.
* New amendment refused, old broken by law remains in place, loophole still open.
Cheers for that. I suppose you can't blame the other clubs for arguing they're not up to speed on it. It's not affecting 90% of the clubs in Laois so P/R and Heath need to push to get it sorted. Was it a motion? Or could it be sorted at a future county committee meeting in Jan or Feb?
It might affect the smaller clubs in each parish as the loophole exists and the precedent has been set.
There's nothing to stop Stradbally and I'm only using them as an example to strip Annanough or Timahoe and to use this loophole to do it.
What exactly is the loophole Portlaoise can transfer players in
Quote from: clonadmad on December 09, 2016, 09:30:48 AM
It might affect the smaller clubs in each parish as the loophole exists and the precedent has been set.
There's nothing to stop Stradbally and I'm only using them as an example to strip Annanough or Timahoe and to use this loophole to do it.
Quote from: BallyroanAbu on December 09, 2016, 10:27:49 PM
What exactly is the loophole Portlaoise can transfer players in
I'm lost here too
It's not rocket science lads
I believe the issue is with the parentage rule. I apologise in advance if I'm wrong and have muddied the water still further....
The young footballer who transferred into Portlaoise from Park/Ratheniska did so under this rule; as did a couple of younger players from Clonad and The Heath.
The problem with this rule is that there is too much of a grey area. The GAA have absolutely no way of proving if a Father played with Portlaoise or any other club in say the 1980's. The onus of proving such is on the player wishing to transfer but part of the concern here is that it would be very easy for a club secretary to put together a letter saying that such a person was 'a key member of our 1982 Junior C Football team who sadly lost in the first round of the championship....'
The initial proposed change to the by-law was that the players could only transfer from a rural to an urban club under the parentage rule if they could prove that the father had played for I think 4 years. It was further amended to include (and I'm paraphrasing) club members or club officials who made a meaningful impact to the club. This opened the door yet further as the father need never have kicked a ball or swung a hurl. How could an affected party ever conclusively argue that such a person was not a member of a committee back 20/30/40 years ago? It would be one man's word against the other and that in itself is simply untenable as an official by-law.
The concern many have with this by-law is that if a club wanted to really force through a transfer then any competent lawyer could drive a truck through the vagueness of such wording should they bring their case along the line towards the DRA.
The Laois County Board take a lot of flack for a lot of very valid reasons...this is one area where they need very definite direction from Croke Park. We can be assured this is an issue affecting other counties as well and there needs to be unambiguous wording here to protect rural clubs operating in the same parish as huge, urban clubs.
I believe they were ill-advised to essentially hand over the wording of this new by-law to the 4 clubs affected by this year's transfers. They were absolutely right to consult with them but the responsibility for drafting the wording of any agreed amendment should surely have fallen to the CCC. They were ultimately negligible in this regard.
merman you do have a good grasp of the problem, however you possibly put your finger on the knub of the problem.
as mentioned before, I have been on delegations going to our masters in Croke Park for guidance.
the biggest stumbling block when it come to drawing up "territorial law" is definition.
and the big problem word is PARISH.
the GAA and the leaders in Croke Park under no circumstances want the organisation to be seen to be sectarian. If they were to give guidance to county boards and clubs around the county that Parish meant Catholic Parish then such guidance would hint that the GAA could be deemed to be sectarian.
Now in many cases, the club boundaries are in effect linked if not bound to the local Catholic Parish boundaries, and functions in a kind of gentlemans agreement with clubs in these counties.
The official rule book and the Croke Park officials cannot be seen to be sectarian, that is why the likes of Ballypickas and the great Tom Cahill never lost when they constantly badgered Croke Park in an attempt to nail the masters on a definite Parish for GAA purposes.
In an age of pc-ness Official GAA cannot and will not be seen to be sectarian.
So you may wish to have a "Parish" rule within each county, but as you mention Merman, a decent barrister would drive a lorry through GAA law if it was brought to civil law courts.
Hence individuals clubs in given counties going to Croke Park for settlement on Parish rules generally get at best a mixed bag of outcomes due to the uneasiness in headquarters about the whole issue.
The Full Text of the submissions to the DRA and their Ruling
In the matter of the an arbitration under the Disputes Resolution Code and the
Arbitration Act 2010
Rafter & Portlaoise GAA v Laois CCC & Laois HC
Hearing: City West Hotel, Dublin, at 8pm on 1 June
Tribunal: Colm O'Rourke, Arran Dowling Hussey BL & David Nohilly
Secretary to the DRA, Jack Anderson, was also in attendance
Verdict: Claim succeeds; application upheld.
Keywords: Keywords: Rule 6.5(c) and (d) of the Official Guide (2015); fair,
procedural administration of player transfers by the County CCC; Bye-Law 6 of the
Laois County Bye-Laws (2016) whether refusal of transfer request was compliant
and in line with the Bye-Laws' regulation of transfers from Rural to Urban club;
Rule 1.13(a) of the Official Guide (2015); the Association shall safeguard and
promote the interest and well-being of all those under 18 years of age who are
involved in its games and related activities; Rule 6.1 of the Official Guide (2015); the
Gaelic Athletic Association is community centred, based on the allegiance of its
members to their local Clubs and Counties, the Transfer and Declaration Rules in
this Official Guide and in County Bye-Laws reflect that ethos.
List of Attendees:
Claimant:
Jonathan Rafter
Jimmy Rafter (Parent)
John Hanniffy (Advocate for Jonathan Rafter & Cathaoirleach CLG Port Laoise)
Pat Leogue, Runaí, CLG Port Laoise
Respondent 1, Laois CCC
Cathaoirleach, Gerry Kavanagh
Rúnaí, Niall Handy
Respondent 2, Laois HC
Cathaoirleach (acting), Mick Bolton
Rúnaí, Willie Stackpool
Background
1. The claimant (aged 15) sought to transfer from Park-Ratheniska GAA Club
(his First Club pursuant to Rule 6.4 of the Official Guide (2015)) to Portlaoise
GAA Club. His application was considered by the first respondent and
refused in a decision dated 22 March 2016. The claimant appealed to the
second respondent but the appeal was dismissed in a decision of 12 April
2016. The claimant then applied to the DRA.
2. Please note that the Tribunal considered all the written submissions, evidence,
oral submissions and legal arguments made by the parties in the present
proceedings. The below reasoned award refers only to the submissions and
evidence the Tribunal consider necessary to explain its reasoning. The account
is also sensitive to young age of the claimant and thus some background
material, heard and considered fully by the Tribunal in its deliberations, is not
alluded to in this written form.
3. In synopsis, the claimant made three arguments: first, a breach by the
respondents of various aspects of Rule 6.5 of the Official Guide (2015); second,
an argument relating to player welfare pursuant to Rule 1.13(a) of the Official
Guide (2015); third, a claim that Bye-Law 6 of the Laois County Bye-Laws of
2016 had been misinterpreted to the claimant's disadvantage by the
respondents.
4. The key point of deliberation for this DRA Tribunal was the third argument
noted above. The first and second points are thus noted only briefly.
Argument 1: Rule 6.5 of the Official Guide (2015)
Claimant
5. On the first argument, the claimant contended that the first respondent had
acted in a procedurally unfair manner contrary to Rule 6.5 (c) and (d) of the
Official Guide (2015), as below:
"Rule 6.5 Transfers within County
(c) The County Committee shall delegate consideration of Applications to
its Competitions Control Committee. If requested by any party
involved, the Committee shall give the applicant and the two Clubs
concerned the opportunity of attending a convened hearing to outline
their respective positions on the application.
(d) The Club of the member seeking a transfer shall be notified of the
application and its observations shall be considered if received within
such time as may be directed by the Competitions Control
Committee."
6. Individual counties, through their CCC, put the above regulations into effect
and the general thrust of Rule 6.5 (c) and (d) is that the club from which the
player is seeking a transfer should, on due notification and within any
relevant time period stated in the County Bye-Laws, be given an opportunity
to make observations (such as an objection) on the transfer request. The CCC
must then consider such an observation in its deliberations. The general
approach across the country, and it seems in Laois, is that where a club
remains silent and/or does not otherwise object to a transfer request that is
highly persuasive in motivating a CCC to accede to the transfer request.
7. The claimant's argument here is that Park-Ratheniska were given such an
opportunity, as permitted by Rule 6.5 and the Laois County Bye-Laws, to
make an observation on the transfer request but did not avail of the
opportunity in written form within the stated time period of no later than 10
February 2016. Accordingly, the claimant argued, as was custom and practice,
the transfer should have been permitted, as others were by the Laois CCC, at
its meeting of 16 February 2016 where all 2016 transfer request within the
county were first considered. Instead, the claimant noted, the CCC hearing
on this particular transfer was delayed until 21 March. The claimant argued
that a phone call received by the Laois CCC secretary from Park-Rathensiska,
prior to or even on the 16th Feb, may have been the reason behind the delay to
the prejudice and detriment of the claimant's transfer request.
Respondents
8. The respondent countered that the phone call noted above was not
specifically about the claimant's transfer request and had been received much
earlier than the 16 February date and that, in any event, it had no bearing on
the CCC's deliberations. The reason for the delay from 16 February to 21
March, in the specific matter of the Rafter transfer request, was, the CCC
informed the Tribunal, because they were seeking clarification of certain
issues in the transfer request (e.g., clarification of the claimant's address,
clarification of when the claimant's elder brother had transferred to Portlaoise
GAA club) and furthermore that they wished to convene a hearing in which
all parties to the matter could be present. In sum, the first respondents argued
there was no prejudice to the claimant in the delay; in contrast, the delay, they
argued, was in an effort to inform themselves fully of all aspects of the
transfer request prior to reaching a decision.
Argument 2: Rule 1.13(a) of the Official Guide (2015)
9. The claimant argued that the denial of the transfer was contrary to the aims
and ethos of the Association outlined in Rule 1.13(a) of the Official Guide
(2015). The claimant's submission was, in this regard, similar to that made in
DRA06/2015 and DRA06/2016: the over-arching purpose of the Association
is one of continuing participation and in doing so to particularly safeguard
the best interests of the child. Accordingly, and with these fundamental aims
in mind, the claimant argued that the interpretation of the applicable Laois
County Bye-Laws given by the respondents was unreasonable and, moreover,
inconsistent, when compared to other transfer requests made and granted at
the same time as the claimant's.
Respondents
10. The respondents argued that with specific regard to player transfers, the ethos
of the GAA was better reflected in Rule 6.1 of the Official Guide:
"As the Gaelic Athletic Association is community centred, based on the
allegiance of its members to their local Clubs and Counties, the
Transfer and Declaration Rules in this Official Guide and in County
Bye-Laws reflect that ethos. A player is considered to always owe
allegiance and loyalty to his First Club and County, as defined in these
Rules."
11. It was this "ethos" that the first respondent felt mandated to uphold for the
greater, common good of all those who participate under the Association's
Rules.
Argument 3: Bye-Law 6 of the Laois County Bye-Laws of 2016
Claimant
12. Bye-Law 6 of the Laois County Bye-Laws of 2016 is as below:
"6. Transfers
a) There shall be two distinct Club "designations" —Urban and Rural.
This will allow the CCC to distinguish between Transfers and
Attachment to First Clubs to and from - (i) Urban to Rural Clubs, (ii)
Rural to Rural Clubs and (iii) Rural to Urban Clubs.
b) Portlaoise GAA Club will be designated an "Urban" Club and all
other Clubs in Laois will be designated "Rural".
c) Normally, Transfers within the county shall be granted only in the
event of a player moving to a new place of Permanent Residence which
is within the Catchment Area of the club to which he wishes to
transfer. In such cases the onus of proof of new permanent residence
shall be on the applicant for transfer.
d) Requests for transfer shall not be considered unless submitted to the
County Secretary before January 31st in any year. Exception: In the
case of an Urban to Rural Transfer! Attachment to First Club, an
application may be granted provided the player has not participated in
Club Competition (including Go Games) in the year in which the
Transfer / Attachment to First Clubs is sought.
e) The C.C.C. shall process and make initial decisions on all
applications for Transfer and Permission to Play within the county
(Riail 6.5, TO. 2015). The Guidelines and Criteria which will assist the
CCC in its deliberations are as follows:
f) The following criteria shall constitute "other relevant connection" for
the purposes of Bye-Laws and this Bye-Law.
(i) Urban to Rural Transfer! Applications for Permission to Play
A player from a designated Urban Club may, at any time, seek
Permission to Play for, or transfer to, any Rural Club without the
necessity of meeting any of the criteria and! or exceptions usually
associated with suchTransfers/Permission to Play.
(ii) Rural to Rural Transfer! Applications for Permission to Play
a) Parentage Rule — A player may apply for Permission to play for an
Independent Team or Transfer to a Club in the catchment area in
which his Parent was a Player in Adult Competition or, in exceptional
circumstances, a Member, who over a reasonable period of time, made
a proven contribution to that Club.
b) Primary School —A player may apply for Permission to Play or
Transfer to a Club / Independent Team where he is presently
attending or has attended Primary School. The Primary School rule
will only be taken into consideration where the player has been
attending this school or has attended for at least one full school year.
c) Proximity to Club Base - A player may apply for Permission to Play
or transfer to the Club / Independent Team based on proximity to
Club Ground.
(iii) Rural to Urban Transfer/ Applications for Permission to Play
a) Parentage Rule — A player may apply for Permission to Play or
Transfer to a Club in the catchment area in which his Parent was a
player in adult competition, or in exceptional circumstances, a
Member who, over a reasonable period of time, has made a proven
contribution to that Club.
b) A family moving residence into Portlaoise Parish from a different
Parish in the County with players from that family who are in their
16th year or younger, but have already played with a rural club
may apply for a Transfer to an urban club."
13. From what the Tribunal was told by both parties, the Bye-Law has a long
history but, put simply, it seeks to regulate and, to a certain extent, protect
player development in rural clubs in the county of Laois as balanced against
the fact that Portlaoise GAA club is the sole club in the county's principal
town. According to the 2011 Census, the population of Laois is 80,559 and that
of Portlaoise is 20,145 = 25% of the total population of Laois.
14. The claimant's argument was that there had been misinterpretation and/or
unreasonably inflexible interpretation of Bye-Law 6 by the respondents. The
focus here was on the Bye-Law's provision for designated Rural and Urban
Clubs such that Portlaoise GAA Club is the sole designated "Urban" Club
within County Laois. The complicating factor in this instance is, as the
claimant noted, while Portlaoise GAA Club is the dominant club in the town,
Portlaoise Parish – the catchment area for GAA purposes – is a wider area and
includes GAA clubs such as the Heath, Clonad and Park-Rathineska.
15. Accordingly, the claimant argued that (the illogical, unintended or unfair
consequence of the respondents' decision is that a player from outside the
Portlaoise Parish/Catchment Area can move into that Parish/Catchment
Area to live permanently and is free to declare for any of the clubs within the
Parish/Catchment Area, including Portlaoise GAA Club; in contrast, a player
already within the Portlaoise Parish/Catchment Area and who has an
existing attachment to a First Club in that Parish/Catchment Area (pursuant
to Rule 6.4 of the Official Guide and Laois County Bye law 5), now appears to
be wholly restricted from ever transferring to Portlaoise GAA club. This was
not, the claimant argued, either the proper interpretation of the Bye-Law nor
did it reflect its original intention.
Respondents
16. The Respondents countered succinctly by stating that their general
interpretation of the Bye-Law 6 and specifically their interpretation of ByeLaw6(f)(iii)
– on Rural to Urban transfers; was driven principally by the
unambiguous designation in Bye-Law 6(b) of Portlaoise GAA club as the sole
"Urban" club in the county and that all other clubs in the county were thus
"Rural" and including Heath, Clonad and Park-Rathineska.
Reasoned Decision
17. First, the Tribunal fully appreciates the claimant's love of Gaelic football and
acknowledges his sincerity in seeking to develop as a player.
18. Second, the Tribunal's view on arguments 1 and 2 noted above is that the
respondents acted in a procedurally fair manner (argument 1) and did not see
to act in any way contrary to the player's welfare (argument 2); rather they
acted in good faith with respect to what they considered best reflected and
protected the ethos of the Association's and the county's rules on transfer
applications.
19. Third, the Tribunal is of the unanimous opinion that the substantive issue in
this case is that of argument 3.
20. Fourth, the majority view is that, as currently constituted, Bye-Law 6 and
particularly Bye Law 6(f)(iii)(b) contains an ambiguity or anomaly that does
not specifically take into account the situation, such as this, whereby a player
with an existing attachment to a First Club within the Portlaoise
Parish/Catchment Area subsequently seeks to transfer to another club within
that same Parish/Catchment Area. The Tribunal finds that this anomaly is
such that, by application of the contra proferentem rule of interpretation (where
there is doubt about the meaning of a clause in a contract, the words should
be construed against the person who drafted that contract), the claimant's
application should succeed. The Tribunal further advises that the Laois
County Board, through their county committee and convention and usual
procedures, work to provide clarity or amend this aspect of their transfer
byelaws. Pending that clarification/amendment, this DRA decision is not to
be treated as a precedent and is distinguished to its facts.
21. Fifth, the above is reached by majority. The minority view held by Mr
Dowling Hussey BL, is as follows: "I disagree, with my fellow panel
members, as to there being any issue at law with the Laois bye laws as
presently constituted. In that, my view is, the respondents properly applied
the rules, they were obliged to consider, and it cannot follow that their
decision should be quashed. On the basis of the view just set out, and for
those reasons alone, I cannot concur with the decision made. Notwithstanding
the remarks just made, the claimant, and his father, personally impressed me,
there is no divergence from any remarks made, on the night or in writing, by
the rest of the panel in wishing them both well."
Award and Directions
22. The Tribunal awards in final and binding determination of this dispute that
the claim succeeds and the application is upheld.
23. The decision is reached by majority pursuant to section 11.2 of the Dispute
Resolutions Code.
24. Pursuant to its powers under section 11.3 of the Disputes Resolution Code,
the Tribunal by majority orders that the transfer sought by the claimant be
deemed approved with immediate effect.
25. The Tribunal directs that Laois County Board should, prior to the beginning
of the next playing season in 2017, deal with the anomaly identified in it ByeLaws
on transfers in a manner that addresses with due clarity the future and
fair processing of player transfer applications between the existing clubs in
the Portlaoise Parish/Catchment Area.
Costs
26. No application for costs was made and nor is any order on costs.
27. The Tribunal orders that the claimant's deposit be returned in full and that
the expenses of the DRA in relation to the hearing of this application, as
certified by the DRA Secretary, be met in full by the respondents.
Date of Oral Hearing: 1 June 2016
Date of Agreed Award: 23 June 2016
Signed: or by email agreement on
Colm O'Rourke
Arran Dowling Hussey
David Nohilly
Quote from: Don Draper on December 10, 2016, 12:32:57 AM
It's not rocket science lads
Oh that's an outstanding contribution- cheers!
Quote from: Keyser Söze on December 10, 2016, 07:21:23 PM
Quote from: Don Draper on December 10, 2016, 12:32:57 AM
It's not rocket science lads
Oh that's an outstanding contribution- cheers!
But it's all laid out in the DRA report, that's where I got the info.
Quote from: Don Draper on December 10, 2016, 11:50:54 PM
Quote from: Keyser Söze on December 10, 2016, 07:21:23 PM
Quote from: Don Draper on December 10, 2016, 12:32:57 AM
It's not rocket science lads
Oh that's an outstanding contribution- cheers!
But it's all laid out in the DRA report, that's where I got the info.
The conversation has moved on to what happened at the Laois Convention.
To be fair, while it mightn't be rocket science, it's fairly confusing from the outside!
Some here claiming it means anyone can transfer within any parish? I thought it was just Portlaoise parish because it contains the only "urban" club, Portlaoise.
Quote from: SCFC on December 11, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
To be fair, while it mightn't be rocket science, it's fairly confusing from the outside!
Some here claiming it means anyone can transfer within any parish? I thought it was just Portlaoise parish because it contains the only "urban" club, Portlaoise.
It always was the case where players could transfer to other clubs within the parish they live. (Portlaoise being the exception as that was governed by this Bye Law everyone is talking about) For instance this year a young player from Annanough played with Stradbally.Kileen have had many players transfered from clubs within the Arles parish, recent past, Sean & Brendan O Shea transfered from Arles to Kileen and further back Kileen transfered a load of players from Ballylinan, Kelly,McDonald,DunneKavanaghs.
Quote from: The Monument Road on December 11, 2016, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: SCFC on December 11, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
To be fair, while it mightn't be rocket science, it's fairly confusing from the outside!
Some here claiming it means anyone can transfer within any parish? I thought it was just Portlaoise parish because it contains the only "urban" club, Portlaoise.
It always was the case where players could transfer to other clubs within the parish they live. (Portlaoise being the exception as that was governed by this Bye Law everyone is talking about) For instance this year a young player from Annanough played with Stradbally.Kileen have had many players transfered from clubs within the Arles parish, recent past, Sean & Brendan O Shea transfered from Arles to Kileen and further back Kileen transfered a load of players from Ballylinan, Kelly,McDonald,DunneKavanaghs.
It's not automatic though. You have to apply and show change of address in most cases.
Quote from: SCFC on December 11, 2016, 07:46:13 PM
Quote from: The Monument Road on December 11, 2016, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: SCFC on December 11, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
To be fair, while it mightn't be rocket science, it's fairly confusing from the outside!
Some here claiming it means anyone can transfer within any parish? I thought it was just Portlaoise parish because it contains the only "urban" club, Portlaoise.
It always was the case where players could transfer to other clubs within the parish they live. (Portlaoise being the exception as that was governed by this Bye Law everyone is talking about) For instance this year a young player from Annanough played with Stradbally.Kileen have had many players transfered from clubs within the Arles parish, recent past, Sean & Brendan O Shea transfered from Arles to Kileen and further back Kileen transfered a load of players from Ballylinan, Kelly,McDonald,DunneKavanaghs.
It's not automatic though. You have to apply and show change of address in most cases.If i have an address in a parish i can play football/hurling in that parish. If that parish has two or three teams i can choose whoever i want to. For instance if i live in Arles parish and played with Kilcruise. Then i wanted to play with Kileen do i need to change address... i dont think so
Quote from: The Monument Road on December 11, 2016, 09:03:23 PM
Quote from: SCFC on December 11, 2016, 07:46:13 PM
Quote from: The Monument Road on December 11, 2016, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: SCFC on December 11, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
To be fair, while it mightn't be rocket science, it's fairly confusing from the outside!
Some here claiming it means anyone can transfer within any parish? I thought it was just Portlaoise parish because it contains the only "urban" club, Portlaoise.
It always was the case where players could transfer to other clubs within the parish they live. (Portlaoise being the exception as that was governed by this Bye Law everyone is talking about) For instance this year a young player from Annanough played with Stradbally.Kileen have had many players transfered from clubs within the Arles parish, recent past, Sean & Brendan O Shea transfered from Arles to Kileen and further back Kileen transfered a load of players from Ballylinan, Kelly,McDonald,DunneKavanaghs.
It's not automatic though. You have to apply and show change of address in most cases.If i have an address in a parish i can play football/hurling in that parish. If that parish has two or three teams i can choose whoever i want to. For instance if i live in Arles parish and played with Kilcruise. Then i wanted to play with Kileen do i need to change address... i dont think so
It's not automatic that you get a transfer if you live in a parish like Stradbally or Ballylinan. There is something about loyalty to first club in the official guide so if push comes to shove, the local CCC usually find in favour of the first club. As some of the posts suggest"Parish" is a toxic word at Croke Park level. They don't like hillbillies like ourselves going on about it which is fair enough but like most things in life, they can't have it both ways. On one side, a secular, hip politically correct organisation reflecting the modern world and on the other hand imposing an outdated and quaint notion of loyalty to the local club.
Quote"an outdated and quaint notion of loyalty to the local club".
What's outdated and quaint about being loyal to your local club ?? That's the whole ethos of the GAA and if that goes the whole thing falls flat on it's arse....
Quote from: Downtheroad on December 11, 2016, 11:24:04 PM
Quote from: The Monument Road on December 11, 2016, 09:03:23 PM
Quote from: SCFC on December 11, 2016, 07:46:13 PM
Quote from: The Monument Road on December 11, 2016, 12:59:45 PM
Quote from: SCFC on December 11, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
To be fair, while it mightn't be rocket science, it's fairly confusing from the outside!
Some here claiming it means anyone can transfer within any parish? I thought it was just Portlaoise parish because it contains the only "urban" club, Portlaoise.
It always was the case where players could transfer to other clubs within the parish they live. (Portlaoise being the exception as that was governed by this Bye Law everyone is talking about) For instance this year a young player from Annanough played with Stradbally.Kileen have had many players transfered from clubs within the Arles parish, recent past, Sean & Brendan O Shea transfered from Arles to Kileen and further back Kileen transfered a load of players from Ballylinan, Kelly,McDonald,DunneKavanaghs.
It's not automatic though. You have to apply and show change of address in most cases.If i have an address in a parish i can play football/hurling in that parish. If that parish has two or three teams i can choose whoever i want to. For instance if i live in Arles parish and played with Kilcruise. Then i wanted to play with Kileen do i need to change address... i dont think so
It's not automatic that you get a transfer if you live in a parish like Stradbally or Ballylinan. There is something about loyalty to first club in the official guide so if push comes to shove, the local CCC usually find in favour of the first club. As some of the posts suggest"Parish" is a toxic word at Croke Park level. They don't like hillbillies like ourselves going on about it which is fair enough but like most things in life, they can't have it both ways. On one side, a secular, hip politically correct organisation reflecting the modern world and on the other hand imposing an outdated and quaint notion of loyalty to the local club.
It may not be automatic that you get the transfer within your own parish and maybe the CCC will try and stop it but at the end of the day if a lad wants to transfer he will get it. Kileen got the two O'Sheas from their neighbours at first glance. They also got a host of players from Ballylinan....CB had no choice...the players were living in the "Parish" and under the rules all you have to do is supply an address...Buggey plays with stradbally even though he is from Annanough....he is living in the "Parish ". And nothing to stop Graigue/Kileshin players transfering accross to one another if they wish to do so. They all live in the " parish". Here's another one for you.
Quote from: The Monument Road on December 12, 2016, 03:16:15 PM
nothing to stop Graigue/Kileshin players transfering accross to one another if they wish to do so. They all live in the " parish". Here's another one for you.
Are you 100% sure of that?! I just don't think a lad from O'Dempseys can transfer to Port or vice versa as he wishes? I think there's more to it than that. "home club" is what the rule book says. Nothing about parishes.
Home club is in the rule book and it is a factor. But it makes it a lot easier if the player looking for a transfer is already living in the parish of the club he wants to transfer to.
Nice report on the double cross in this weeks Express
From reading the report in the Leinster,The 4 Portlaoise Parish Clubs Chairmen had a meeting and an agreement thrashed out and in place.
Yet when the county board meeting took place,lo and behold the Portlaoise Chairman seemed to have forgotten what was agreed despite the other 3 Chairman all singing off the same hymn sheet.
Quote from: The Monument Road on December 13, 2016, 10:49:21 AM
Home club is in the rule book and it is a factor. But it makes it a lot easier if the player looking for a transfer is already living in the parish of the club he wants to transfer to.
I'm not sure transferring to a club in the same parish is all that easy.
As other's have said, everybody has a "home club" and there is an "attachment to first club" that must be formally broken via transfer.
Quote from: clonadmad on December 14, 2016, 11:43:19 AM
From reading the report in the Leinster,The 4 Portlaoise Parish Clubs Chairmen had a meeting and an agreement thrashed out and in place.
Yet when the county board meeting took place,lo and behold the Portlaoise Chairman seemed to have forgotten what was agreed despite the other 3 Chairman all singing off the same hymn sheet.
Thank you for that. I found it hard to understand what had actually happened at Convention from all the to-ing and fro-ing on here.
Quote from: Keyser Söze on December 14, 2016, 06:07:36 PM
Quote from: clonadmad on December 14, 2016, 11:43:19 AM
From reading the report in the Leinster,The 4 Portlaoise Parish Clubs Chairmen had a meeting and an agreement thrashed out and in place.
Yet when the county board meeting took place,lo and behold the Portlaoise Chairman seemed to have forgotten what was agreed despite the other 3 Chairman all singing off the same hymn sheet.
Thank you for that. I found it hard to understand what had actually happened at Convention from all the to-ing and fro-ing on here.
I think clonadmad meant Convention not County board meeting, well that's how it read in the paper .
Your right Don
One slip and Keyser like the Skibbereen Eagle with Imperial Russia pounces on it to set the record straight.
Well done Keyser
Quote from: clonadmad on December 14, 2016, 06:50:46 PM
Your right Don
One slip and Keyser like the Skibbereen Eagle with Imperial Russia pounces on it to set the record straight.
Well done Keyser
Emmm no, there was no pouncing. I didn't even notice that you had said County Board meeting instead of Convention and I was thanking you for the clarity you had provided to the debate.
But there you go!