Sean Kelly - Good or Bad?

[Pietas]

Wont comment.  I'll leave it up to ye

[Gnevin]

In what way, i assume you mean in relation to Croker?

[orangeman]

He was there to do a job and made sure it happened -  those in Ulster would not have enjoyed his stewardship.

[OUR BOY]

Maybe some in Ulster would not have enjoyed his stewardship but an alot thought he did the right thing.I hate this generalisation that everyone in the north was completely against the absolving of rule 42 (and 21 for that matter).Some up north would like to move on as well.

[Louth Exile]

Maybe some in Ulster would not have enjoyed his stewardship but an alot thought he did the right thing.I hate this generalisation that everyone in the north was completely against the absolving of rule 42 (and 21 for that matter).Some up north would like to move on as well.

Fair point, it would still be interesting to see what the split of voting would be between Ulster voters and the rest!

[Pietas]

In what way, i assume you mean in relation to Croker?

the whole package.

[Rav67]

I think he was a great President and is a great man.  He managed every situation he faced very tactfully including the Rule 42 issue.

I hate this generalisation that everyone in the north was completely against the absolving of rule 42 (and 21 for that matter).Some up north would like to move on as well.

Very true, IMO the vast majority of GAA folk in the north were very much in favour of its abolition, spoke to very few people opposed to the change.  The decision-makers just tend to be more conservative than most members.

[The Lord of Luuuvre]

Agree

[The Real Laoislad]

I think he was a great President and is a great man.  He managed every situation he faced very tactfully including the Rule 42 issue.

I agree

[GalwayBayBoy]

A number of people have had in for Sean Kelly from pretty much day one due to his stance on one or two obvious hot-button issues that need no further highlighting. These people will twist every utterance or media appearance of the man to suit their own petty and mean-spirited ends. That much we can be sure of.

Personally I never felt he was doing anything that he truly believed wasn't in the best interests of the GAA long-term and I have no problem with him releasing a book. Everyone has a book out these days from chefs to GAA coaches and players to former Presidents of the United States. I don't see why an ex-President of the GAA should be any different. It's just another handy stick to try and beat the man with.

[Leo]

Maybe some in Ulster would not have enjoyed his stewardship but an alot thought he did the right thing.I hate this generalisation that everyone in the north was completely against the absolving of rule 42 (and 21 for that matter).Some up north would like to move on as well.

Good man our boy.
Too many of satyed silent when the political pressure came on in certain Ulster counties not to move, totally against the vast majority of the views of ordinady rank and file who have a more open and self-confident attitude. This post will provoke reaction about who voted for what but you're talking about a handful of die-hard ofiicials and GAA wanabees who blithely refused ato allow vote among rank and file members. Kelly recognised these difficulties in various counties and skilfully manged the issues through some hate-filled opposition.
Kerry has produced many great footballers and a truly great President.

[magpie seanie]

I dare say there's no need for me to post on this thread.

[Hardy]

I dare you to hold out for another 24 hours Seanie! 

[thewobbler]

I wonder at what stage might it be possible for the "no" campaigners to admit that made a huge song and a dance about nothing?

Is one year enough? What about two years? Five? Fifty Five? Or to go further - would it be wrong to suggest that some of these "GAA people" would rather see the GAA go through a period of turmoil, just to lend some credence to their crazy theories?

[his holiness nb]

"enlightened" ??  

Get off your high horse, just because it was democratically voted, doesnt make it automatically the correct decision, only time will tell how that works out.

To suggest the "for" side were more "enlightened" is a snide and stupid slur on the people who were against it for legitimate reasons. You might as well just come out and say they were less intelligent  
Lets not get into the details, its been argued to death.
I think it reeks of unsureness as to whether they did the right thing or not when so many of the "for" side seem to feel the need to reming everyone how enlightened they are and how backwards everyone else is.