Another PR disaster

[Kickham csc]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

This issue is quite simple.

The GAA rule book has been established to govern gaelic games, property and the playing rules of the game. There is no section in the rule book that covers charity events, organized by an outside group who wish to use GAA grounds.

If this is a real pressing issue, then we all know how to enact a request for a change to the rule book.

What annoys me is that, while the GAA are not squeaky clean on the Cork or this issue, neither are the organizers of the events. There seems to be an entitled attitude from people outside the organization, who feel that they can use GAA grounds when they want and how they want.

Last year, the FAI got off scott free around the Millar charity event.... why were there no soccer grounds made available to cope with the crowd. Why did the organizing committee not approach the GAA properly instead of ploughing away and using public outcry to get what they want.  Why did the GAA have to bale the soccer community out.

This time, why wasn't a GAA 7 a side tournament organized for the man. Surely a 7 a side tournament would have the same turnout for the family as a soccer one. Easy option, no issues.

But if this is going to be an ongoing issue, provisions need to be made regarding the organization of charity events.

[Baile Brigín 2]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch? Then soccer couldn't be played on it.

The jobsworths are really stretching here

[magpie seanie]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch? Then soccer couldn't be played on it.

The jobsworths are really stretching here

This is a fact. It might not suit your agenda whatever that is but it is a fact.

[Baile Brigín 2]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch? Then soccer couldn't be played on it.

The jobsworths are really stretching here

This is a fact. It might not suit your agenda whatever that is but it is a fact.

It is absolutely not a fact. Stop lying, its childish.

[magpie seanie]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch? Then soccer couldn't be played on it.

The jobsworths are really stretching here

This is a fact. It might not suit your agenda whatever that is but it is a fact.

It is absolutely not a fact. Stop lying, its childish.

Whatever. I should have known better as I said at the outset. 

Are you Donald Trump?

[Baile Brigín 2]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch? Then soccer couldn't be played on it.

The jobsworths are really stretching here

This is a fact. It might not suit your agenda whatever that is but it is a fact.

It is absolutely not a fact. Stop lying, its childish.

Whatever. I should have known better as I said at the outset. 

Are you Donald Trump?

Your understanding of this is a GAA club got punished for allowing a soccer game on their soccer pitch?

[magpie seanie]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch? Then soccer couldn't be played on it.

The jobsworths are really stretching here

This is a fact. It might not suit your agenda whatever that is but it is a fact.

It is absolutely not a fact. Stop lying, its childish.

Whatever. I should have known better as I said at the outset. 

Are you Donald Trump?

Your understanding of this is a GAA club got punished for allowing a soccer game on their soccer pitch?

Please try and read this with an open mind.

I'll address your question/deflection later but my reply to you was on this assertion or question you posted:

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch?

The fact is the GAA club have a lease on the parish soccer pitch. You told me this was a lie when it's an established fact. I want you to retract your accusation firstly.

As for your latest question (attempt to deflect from your completely wrong accusation) - it is quite clear the proposed suspension in related to hosting of a tournament without auothorisation. It's rule 6.40 of the GAA Official Guide Part 1 if you need to look it up. I do not know why the GAA authorities denied the permission twice. I do know there is a sanction in under that rule for hosting a tournament without authorisation. I feel the playing of soccer is not the issue here but is being used as a stick to beat the GAA with. I certainly never posted anything to the effect of nor do I think a GAA club got punished for allowing a soccer game on their soccer pitch as you put it. All i was doing was pointing out the FACT that the GAA club have a lease on the parish soccer pitch.

[Baile Brigín 2]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch? Then soccer couldn't be played on it.

The jobsworths are really stretching here

This is a fact. It might not suit your agenda whatever that is but it is a fact.

It is absolutely not a fact. Stop lying, its childish.

Whatever. I should have known better as I said at the outset. 

Are you Donald Trump?

Your understanding of this is a GAA club got punished for allowing a soccer game on their soccer pitch?

Please try and read this with an open mind.

I'll address your question/deflection later but my reply to you was on this assertion or question you posted:

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch?

The fact is the GAA club have a lease on the parish soccer pitch. You told me this was a lie when it's an established fact. I want you to retract your accusation firstly.

As for your latest question (attempt to deflect from your completely wrong accusation) - it is quite clear the proposed suspension in related to hosting of a tournament without auothorisation. It's rule 6.40 of the GAA Official Guide Part 1 if you need to look it up. I do not know why the GAA authorities denied the permission twice. I do know there is a sanction in under that rule for hosting a tournament without authorisation. I feel the playing of soccer is not the issue here but is being used as a stick to beat the GAA with. I certainly never posted anything to the effect of nor do I think a GAA club got punished for allowing a soccer game on their soccer pitch as you put it. All i was doing was pointing out the FACT that the GAA club have a lease on the parish soccer pitch.

Fact how? You just saying it doesn't make it true.

There is no scenario where a GAA club has a lease on, maintains and insures a soccer pitch that is in is use as a soccer pitch.

Have a little think about it.

[magpie seanie]

I believe the gaa should take a good hard look at their rule books and amend for the 21st century.  Words like reasonable,exceptional circumstances,delegation and good faith etc.. might be appropriate in some areas.  If you don't change you get left behind quickly, what was sensible in 1956 might not be seen as sensible today and changes might be needed to accommodate the present day environment.  Common sense should always be an option when it makes sense and the rule books do not.

Common sense. Does that cover when a club applies for permission, under a rule which has been modified over the years, is refused permission twice but decides to go ahead without permission?

What would be the legal/insurance situation if someone broke their leg in that soccer match? If such a scenario arose and the injured person sued the GAA we'd have the same people saying - oh the GAA should have had everything in place beforehand....need to be more professional....etc.

I'd be fairly sure the reasons the applications were refused could have been addressed but clearly they weren't.

Why would someone sue the GAA if they broke their leg on a soccer pitch?

I shouldn't engage with you becasue you can't have missed this unless you did so deliberately but I'll make an exception in this case.

Who has the lease on the soccer pitch? The GAA club. Can you join the dots now?

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch? Then soccer couldn't be played on it.

The jobsworths are really stretching here

This is a fact. It might not suit your agenda whatever that is but it is a fact.

It is absolutely not a fact. Stop lying, its childish.

Whatever. I should have known better as I said at the outset. 

Are you Donald Trump?

Your understanding of this is a GAA club got punished for allowing a soccer game on their soccer pitch?

Please try and read this with an open mind.

I'll address your question/deflection later but my reply to you was on this assertion or question you posted:

Why the hell would a GAA club have a lease on a soccer pitch?

The fact is the GAA club have a lease on the parish soccer pitch. You told me this was a lie when it's an established fact. I want you to retract your accusation firstly.

As for your latest question (attempt to deflect from your completely wrong accusation) - it is quite clear the proposed suspension in related to hosting of a tournament without auothorisation. It's rule 6.40 of the GAA Official Guide Part 1 if you need to look it up. I do not know why the GAA authorities denied the permission twice. I do know there is a sanction in under that rule for hosting a tournament without authorisation. I feel the playing of soccer is not the issue here but is being used as a stick to beat the GAA with. I certainly never posted anything to the effect of nor do I think a GAA club got punished for allowing a soccer game on their soccer pitch as you put it. All i was doing was pointing out the FACT that the GAA club have a lease on the parish soccer pitch.

Fact how? You just saying it doesn't make it true.

There is no scenario where a GAA club has a lease on, maintains and insures a soccer pitch that is in is use as a soccer pitch.

Have a little think about it.

I just said the GAA Club has a lease on the soccer pitch. This is accepted by everyone. You added on the last bit (for whatever reason). If you want to ignore the facts that's your prerogative.

[rosnarun]

I think the 'facts'  here the community built a facilty which was in use bu a cocker club and an athlethic club . but as is the way of most soccer clubs  it  eventually became defuct as did the athletic club so the GAA in need of Space took over the lease of the grounds from the  community council , the field is still known as the soccer pitch but is in reality a GAA pitch same as any other GAA pitch  and Subject to the same rules .

[Baile Brigín 2]

I think the 'facts'  here the community built a facilty which was in use bu a cocker club and an athlethic club . but as is the way of most soccer clubs  it  eventually became defuct as did the athletic club so the GAA in need of Space took over the lease of the grounds from the  community council , the field is still known as the soccer pitch but is in reality a GAA pitch same as any other GAA pitch  and Subject to the same rules .

You mean Killea FC who use the pitch?

Come on lads, get real here. Soccer was played on a soccer pitch. If the GAA took it over the goals and markings would be GAA ones.

Think what you are arguing. The GAA pay a lease on and maintain a soccer pitch for the soccer community?!? All media states its a soccer pitch, used to play soccer.

[magpie seanie]

I think the 'facts'  here the community built a facilty which was in use bu a cocker club and an athlethic club . but as is the way of most soccer clubs  it  eventually became defuct as did the athletic club so the GAA in need of Space took over the lease of the grounds from the  community council , the field is still known as the soccer pitch but is in reality a GAA pitch same as any other GAA pitch  and Subject to the same rules .

You mean Killea FC who use the pitch?

Come on lads, get real here. Soccer was played on a soccer pitch. If the GAA took it over the goals and markings would be GAA ones.

Think what you are arguing. The GAA pay a lease on and maintain a soccer pitch for the soccer community?!? All media states its a soccer pitch, used to play soccer.

No one said anything about soccer goals or markings. The pitch being talked about is known locally as the soccer pitch. You're been caught bullshitting and are refusing to accept you were wrong.

[trueblue1234]

I think the 'facts'  here the community built a facilty which was in use bu a cocker club and an athlethic club . but as is the way of most soccer clubs  it  eventually became defuct as did the athletic club so the GAA in need of Space took over the lease of the grounds from the  community council , the field is still known as the soccer pitch but is in reality a GAA pitch same as any other GAA pitch  and Subject to the same rules .

You mean Killea FC who use the pitch?

Come on lads, get real here. Soccer was played on a soccer pitch. If the GAA took it over the goals and markings would be GAA ones.

Think what you are arguing. The GAA pay a lease on and maintain a soccer pitch for the soccer community?!? All media states its a soccer pitch, used to play soccer.

Who owns the lease for the pitch?

[Kickham csc]

I think the 'facts'  here the community built a facilty which was in use bu a cocker club and an athlethic club . but as is the way of most soccer clubs  it  eventually became defuct as did the athletic club so the GAA in need of Space took over the lease of the grounds from the  community council , the field is still known as the soccer pitch but is in reality a GAA pitch same as any other GAA pitch  and Subject to the same rules .

You mean Killea FC who use the pitch?

Come on lads, get real here. Soccer was played on a soccer pitch. If the GAA took it over the goals and markings would be GAA ones.

Think what you are arguing. The GAA pay a lease on and maintain a soccer pitch for the soccer community?!? All media states its a soccer pitch, used to play soccer.

No one said anything about soccer goals or markings. The pitch being talked about is known locally as the soccer pitch. You're been caught bullshitting and are refusing to accept you were wrong.

Baile Brigín 2, just checking if the following is correct.

Killea FC pitch located at Hillview Manor Road Killea

Naomh Colmcille GAA club, located off N13  Moylemoss, Newtowncunningham,

Does Killea play in Newtowncunningham or Killea?

[Baile Brigín 2]

I think the 'facts'  here the community built a facilty which was in use bu a cocker club and an athlethic club . but as is the way of most soccer clubs  it  eventually became defuct as did the athletic club so the GAA in need of Space took over the lease of the grounds from the  community council , the field is still known as the soccer pitch but is in reality a GAA pitch same as any other GAA pitch  and Subject to the same rules .

You mean Killea FC who use the pitch?

Come on lads, get real here. Soccer was played on a soccer pitch. If the GAA took it over the goals and markings would be GAA ones.

Think what you are arguing. The GAA pay a lease on and maintain a soccer pitch for the soccer community?!? All media states its a soccer pitch, used to play soccer.

No one said anything about soccer goals or markings. The pitch being talked about is known locally as the soccer pitch. You're been caught bullshitting and are refusing to accept you were wrong.

Because it is a soccer pitch...

Why would the GAA operate a functioning soccer pitch?