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

[Milltown Row2]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

[Baile Brigín 2]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

[trailer]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

If you really cared about rule 42, you think you would have joined a GAA club and brought forward a motion to have it removed.

[Milltown Row2]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

Trump EU law? Ffs lad, you've lost it now

[johnnycool]

I'd say the GAA has nothing to lose if the Irish Government decide to prioritise multi-use facilities as that would mean the likes of Tolka park as mentioned earlier would need developed to facilitate the largest sport played competitively on this island being Gaelic Games and I don't mean sticking a set of GAA goal posts at either end of a soccer or rugby sized pitch.

So we should amend the rules so?

/Jim.

I'd have no problems with that.

Would the owners of Tolka park or a Wesley College like to be told, no grants unless such facilities can accomodate gaelic  games?

I can only see win win for the GAA.

Could you flesh out this proposal?

You're saying the GAA should pay to buy up the properties around Tolka Park in order to demolish them for a "multi-purpose" stadium nobody needs?

Yes?

Are you proposing they pay to divert the River Tolka too? Because that would also need to happen in order to install a GAA-length pitch there.

If tolka isn't suitable to be used as a multi functional stadium then no government funds, simples.

If the stick used to beat the GAA up is that government funding was pumped into a stadium not being used for other sports and the threat of not funding Navan for the same reasons then its only fair those same rules apply to all sporting organisations looking government funding.

Do you think Louth GAA should be allowed to use this new stadium in Drogheda?

Tolka is multi functional. Isnt rugby played there?
The issue is, as you know, the ban and its compatibility with state aid and competition law.

The idea that every sport can be played in every venue the state gives a geant to is so impractical you are being delivmberately obtuse.

It's not strictly multi functional if it can't accommodate one of the most popular field games in Ireland, is that not a fair statement to make?
Why should the IRFU, the FAI and their affiliated clubs get away scot free on the multi functional requirement because their pitch requirements are less?

I am being obtuse but its in response to the stick being used to beat the GAA accepting government aid for stadium development irrespective of the ban which I hope is rescinded in some form.

Taking that logic to the nth degree means that Tolka and Drogheda shouldn't get government aid as they too won't meet this multi functional criteria being bandied about.

If you don't agree with that criteria being used for all applications   then you can't complain about a rule that the GAA have had for decades wrt the use of their own property.

I wish the Millers all the best in their fundraising endeavours.

Cork GAA have put themselves in a huge debt underwritten by Croke park so it's only right their rules are respected and due process is followed.

[Baile Brigín 2]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

Trump EU law? Ffs lad, you've lost it now

On the other thread is a document that the EU insisted on its use for community events as a condition of funding. This is why the politicians are involved

Plesse keep up.

[Baile Brigín 2]

I'd say the GAA has nothing to lose if the Irish Government decide to prioritise multi-use facilities as that would mean the likes of Tolka park as mentioned earlier would need developed to facilitate the largest sport played competitively on this island being Gaelic Games and I don't mean sticking a set of GAA goal posts at either end of a soccer or rugby sized pitch.

So we should amend the rules so?

/Jim.

I'd have no problems with that.

Would the owners of Tolka park or a Wesley College like to be told, no grants unless such facilities can accomodate gaelic  games?

I can only see win win for the GAA.

Could you flesh out this proposal?

You're saying the GAA should pay to buy up the properties around Tolka Park in order to demolish them for a "multi-purpose" stadium nobody needs?

Yes?

Are you proposing they pay to divert the River Tolka too? Because that would also need to happen in order to install a GAA-length pitch there.

If tolka isn't suitable to be used as a multi functional stadium then no government funds, simples.

If the stick used to beat the GAA up is that government funding was pumped into a stadium not being used for other sports and the threat of not funding Navan for the same reasons then its only fair those same rules apply to all sporting organisations looking government funding.

Do you think Louth GAA should be allowed to use this new stadium in Drogheda?

Tolka is multi functional. Isnt rugby played there?
The issue is, as you know, the ban and its compatibility with state aid and competition law.

The idea that every sport can be played in every venue the state gives a geant to is so impractical you are being delivmberately obtuse.

It's not strictly multi functional if it can't accommodate one of the most popular field games in Ireland, is that not a fair statement to make?
Why should the IRFU, the FAI and their affiliated clubs get away scot free on the multi functional requirement because their pitch requirements are less?

I am being obtuse but its in response to the stick being used to beat the GAA accepting government aid for stadium development irrespective of the ban which I hope is rescinded in some form.

Taking that logic to the nth degree means that Tolka and Drogheda shouldn't get government aid as they too won't meet this multi functional criteria being bandied about.

If you don't agree with that criteria being used for all applications   then you can't complain about a rule that the GAA have had for decades wrt the use of their own property.

I wish the Millers all the best in their fundraising endeavours.

Cork GAA have put themselves in a huge debt underwritten by Croke park so it's only right their rules are respected and due process is followed.

I take your point and agree in part. But you can't say gyms dont get funding if they cant  accomodate a hurling pitch. Thats nonsense.

The reality is the pitch dimensions are the issue. Soccer and rugby fit in Gaelic games venues. Adult gaelic games dont fit in soccer and rugby pitches. Banning state funding of all non gaelic games venues is silly talk.

But at least you concede the principle that multi sports facilities are the way to go.

[Jinxy]

Bernard O'Byrne
‏
@BernardOByrne

Damien Duff should shut his mouth. I agree that the Liam Millar game should go ahead in PUC but Duff's input is insulting and ill-formed. Back off DD and let serious people GAA and football sort it out.

https://twitter.com/BernardOByrne/status/1022930633499320320

Current CEO of Basketball Ireland.
Former CEO of the FAI.

[Syferus]

The GAA ain't acting particularly seriously here. Still don't get this desire to be offended when most GAA members know very well the suits are in the wrong here.

[Milltown Row2]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

Trump EU law? Ffs lad, you've lost it now

On the other thread is a document that the EU insisted on its use for community events as a condition of funding. This is why the politicians are involved

Plesse keep up.

The rule has been in place before the EU was set up? So when this process was put together did no one in government or as you say the EU not see a problem?

[Baile Brigín 2]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

If you really cared about rule 42, you think you would have joined a GAA club and brought forward a motion to have it removed.

i am a member of a club... perhaps you are right, maybe i should

[Syferus]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

Trump EU law? Ffs lad, you've lost it now

On the other thread is a document that the EU insisted on its use for community events as a condition of funding. This is why the politicians are involved

Plesse keep up.

The rule has been in place before the EU was set up? So when this process was put together did no one in government or as you say the EU not see a problem?

MR2 not understanding the law, again.

[Baile Brigín 2]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

Trump EU law? Ffs lad, you've lost it now

On the other thread is a document that the EU insisted on its use for community events as a condition of funding. This is why the politicians are involved

Plesse keep up.

The rule has been in place before the EU was set up? So when this process was put together did no one in government or as you say the EU not see a problem?

Did the rule not go in the day the ban on players playing other sports go? So 70s? The EU saw the problem, thats the whole point. They explicitly flagged that PuC had to be made available for community events. This has been referenced in most newspaper coverage of the story.

[sid waddell]

I'd say the GAA has nothing to lose if the Irish Government decide to prioritise multi-use facilities as that would mean the likes of Tolka park as mentioned earlier would need developed to facilitate the largest sport played competitively on this island being Gaelic Games and I don't mean sticking a set of GAA goal posts at either end of a soccer or rugby sized pitch.

So we should amend the rules so?

/Jim.

I'd have no problems with that.

Would the owners of Tolka park or a Wesley College like to be told, no grants unless such facilities can accomodate gaelic  games?

I can only see win win for the GAA.

Could you flesh out this proposal?

You're saying the GAA should pay to buy up the properties around Tolka Park in order to demolish them for a "multi-purpose" stadium nobody needs?

Yes?

Are you proposing they pay to divert the River Tolka too? Because that would also need to happen in order to install a GAA-length pitch there.

If tolka isn't suitable to be used as a multi functional stadium then no government funds, simples.

If the stick used to beat the GAA up is that government funding was pumped into a stadium not being used for other sports and the threat of not funding Navan for the same reasons then its only fair those same rules apply to all sporting organisations looking government funding.

Do you think Louth GAA should be allowed to use this new stadium in Drogheda?

Can you tell me:

Should an indoor athletics stadium, such as the one in Nenagh, receive government funding if GAA isn't played in it?

What about an outdoor athletics stadium such as Santry?

What about the National Aquatics Centre?

Should that be capable of hosting GAA too?

Can you tell me under what circumstances the GAA would ever want to use Tolka Park, given that there's a 9k capacity stadium available to it up the road in Donnycarney - one which I don't ever recall any other sporting body looking to use.

[Milltown Row2]

Asked this question before not sure if it was answered but if the state give money to the GAA they know about rule 42, don't they?

So knowing they know, then they have accepted that soccer and rugby won't be played until the rule is changed

Rule 42 doesnt trump EU law. The question you should be asking is did the GAA realise accepting the funds negate rule 42 and if so what was the point of this weeks noise

Trump EU law? Ffs lad, you've lost it now

On the other thread is a document that the EU insisted on its use for community events as a condition of funding. This is why the politicians are involved

Plesse keep up.

The rule has been in place before the EU was set up? So when this process was put together did no one in government or as you say the EU not see a problem?

MR2 not understanding the law, again.

So when the law decide things through the courts you're happy enough about that?