Messages

There's a readymade solution -

Team that loses the toss has to wear the O'Neill's pink jerseys for their county

Thought Ryan Feeney was to sort the whole thing out?? 

He's at QUB now. Seems to be a PR puff merchant.

One of the most puffed up self-promoters of our age...

Did you see the wee prat and his wife presenting flowers to the Pope on TV, then telling Miriam O'Callaghan that Francie asked them to pray for him?
Just recently they got the front cover of the Irish News for their wedding, with the McAleeses, PSNI head and other worthies present. Word on the street is that apology cards were read out from Bertie Ahern, Leo Varadkar and Hilary Clinton. Seriously. Like who invites Varadkar and Clinton to their wedding?

Thanks to Hardstation for reminding us of Feeney's central role in the Casement fiasco. How has this pathetic social climber retained credibility? God help Queen's...

Nicky has less than a year to go now and is not going to take issue with anybody on anything from here on in - he's showing the ropes to the new man.

Wish I could agree with that AZ. Nickey has turned out to be quite a dictator. His way or no way. And a complete reactionary. Whatever way the wind's blowing in the media etc, he'll blow that way. And in his last year he has said he'll set up a committee to change rule 11. I haven't heard many people saying there's a problem with rule 11; the real problem is enforcement, which has been compromised even more by recent events. He could do more damage by insisting on a change of rule when none might be needed.

Think back on what he said at Congress a couple of years. Pay for play in any form would not even be discussed during his term, and any grants would have to be discussed by counties BEFORE being dealt with by Central Council. Either he was lying, he forgot, or his interpretation of rules (and his own words) is so skewed that he can still try to justify all of his subsequent actions. And it's this third possibility I'd be most worried about. His likely strange interpretation of rule 11 and why it needs to be changed might fly in the face of a commonsense interpretation. So he could be creating even more problems, when it might be best to leave the rule alone.

Some papers said the vote against the grants was as much as 1/3 or 40%. Others said as little as 35 or so votes.

Mark Conway was quoted as saying he was promised a handcount and this was reneged on.

If this so, how can we state categorically?

All we do now is that at least 10 counties were mandated to vote against beforehand. If they didn't all raise their hands, they must have known it was inevitable, after all the 'support the president or else' politicking that was going on for weeks beforehand.

He's right in most of what he said, but his metaphors were just ridiculous. I'd imagine he knew fine well his language would wind up some people, which is probably why he did it. And it made it easier to make his points about paying managers and Club Tyrone.

That's a rather bizarre analysis of it all. I posted this because:

1 - It has to go down as one of the most self-serving set of comments ever made - ie, I changed Irish history.

2 - Do I really need to point out how factually wrong it is? It was a significant development for the GAA, but it's a mere drop in the ocean of Irish history.

3 - It implies that everything that happened in Croke Park before rugby was played there was reflective of bigotry, and we needed rugby to be played there to be freed from it.

4 - If this is what Kenoy believes, what is he doing on Central Council? Should he not be a rugby official if he thinks it represents a more all-embracing Ireland?

5 - He seems to be complaining that there's no controversy about Croke Park at the moment. He seems to want to be at the centre of controversy, just for the sake of it. Otherwise, why write the article? (His massive ego aside...)

6 - His comments about the Tyrone County Board seem quite libellous, unless he has some proof. It's the first time I've heard this allegation.

7 - Seeing as he was very prominent in Roscommon County Board while it plunged into unprecedented levels of debt for any county board, he should know to be careful about accusations of financial impropriety against other boards.

8 - Even if he were right about 6, which I doubt, what about the popular rumour that Mr Kenoy himself is being healthily reimbursed with "expenses" to manage the Tulsk club?

Uladh, would you ever stop being so obnoxious.

You asked us to remind you of any links between the grants issue and the Cork strike.

I gave you one notable example in reply.

In answer to your next question, there's plenty of evidence of his role.

He was at the top table when the GPA announced to the media its intention to strike, and he attacked the media. Donal O'Neill has since said he is now driving the GPA towards strike actions. He is also recognised as the commander in chief of the Cork hurlers, who decided to join the Cork football team on strike.

In answer to your last question, I said he was "organising strikes". He did. The GPA one didn't go ahead, but it was still organised.

[They are an unelected unaffiliated body formed by objectors to the Players Grant Scheme who have no mandate from anybody.]

He also had a go at those who oppose grants.

I was so astounded by his comments about Croke Park that I neglected to focus on his comments on Of One Belief.

Here is what he had to say about them:

"Of One Belief - who are they, how were they formed, what mandate do they have and from whom and how did this unelected, unaffiliated group manage to get hearings from the DRA?

In summary, the answers are as follows. They are an unelected unaffiliated body formed by objectors to the Players Grant Scheme who have no mandate from anybody. Unfortunately the rule establishing the DRA is ambiguous enough to allow a window for such groups.

By granting them a hearing, the DRA is legitimising a group who have no official standing in the GAA. Indeed, they are creating a precedent that means any group with a bee in its bonnet can attempt to undermine democratically reached decisions.

The level of hypocrisy in this group is mind-boggling. Many of its adherents are members of clubs who are paying huge sums of money to team managers. Their chief organiser has been involved for years in a fundraising group in Tyrone whose income is used to look after the "needs" of allegedly amateur inter-county players.

Now they want to block a scheme that will recognise the special place of Gaelic games in our society...

This group simply demonstrates again that there will always be whiter than white mavericks out there who want to undermine legitimately reached democratic decisions. Thankfully, democracy allows them a voice. Thankfully, the majority also rules."

Now that I look at these statements, they look quite libellous. Unless Mr Kenoy can magic up some proof of his allegiations. What do the Tyrone people think?

Remind me again of the link between the grants issue and the cork hurlers and footballers striking over selectors?

How about Donal Og Cusack organising strikes on both issues inside a month, for starters?

[It was a day of peace, tranquility and triumph when Ireland declared her independence, when we all started singing from the same hymn sheet. It was a day when all creeds and classes united on a sporting occasion and showed dignified respect for each other, a quality that had previously been absent for hundreds of years.]

The following was published in the Roscommon Herald in a column by a Mr T Kenoy, who is apparently the Roscommon rep on Central Council.

"WHAT'S THE SCORE
Anniversary of a Memorable Occasion
Attending Ireland's Six Nations game against Wales in Croke Park recently was disappointing from a sporting perspective. But it also brought back memories of a historic occasion exactly one year earlier when the 'Auld Enemy' ventured onto Croker's sacred sod and got kicked off the pitch by Eddie O'Sullivan's heroes.
How times can change in a short period. ...Some believed that there would be a riot on Jones' Road...
But the opposite happened. It was a day of peace, tranquility and triumph when Ireland declared her independence, when we all started singing from the same hymn sheet. It was a day when all creeds and classes united on a sporting occasion and showed dignified respect for each other, a quality that had previously been absent for hundreds of years.
And no the sky didn't fall. Indeed that day was the cornerstore of a new Ireland, an Ireland that has matured beyond recognition, has moved on to a new all-embracing and more tolerant mode.
A year later and there was hardly a word written or spoken anywhere about the fact that a foreign game was being played in Croke Park. There are still a few of the "no change brigade" around but then in any democracy they are fully entitled to their opinion, different though it may be from the vast majority.
Ireland's history, as my generation learned it, reflected generations of ideological bigotry. The new history is little over than a year old, written on a day when a new generation marched unshackled through the debris of centuries of racial and religious intolerance. It was a proud day for Ireland, a proud day also for the GAA as a historic moment was played out on the history laden sod of its headquarters.
A year later foreign games on Croker are no longer news worthy. How times move on.

Terrible news. May he rest in peace.

Donegal apparently voting against too.

Some of the big Dublin clubs have been paying for players so long that this scheme is nothing new to them. 

The other fascinating point is O'Neill's claim that Donal Og Cusack is the man pulling the strings in the GPA now. Without wanting to go over all the old ground again, I think this does vindicate those of us who suspected ulterior motives in the role of the Cork hurlers in striking over the issue of the football selectors.

If, as O'Neill suggests, Cusack was pulling the strings for the threatened national strike over grants, it would hardly be surprising if he was doing the same for a strike in Cork.

Some people said at the time that they were two entirely separate issues, but when you have the person at the helm, with similarly militant views on both issues and pushing a similarly militant action, I can't see how you can completely divorce the two.

The main reason Dessie gets such an easy time from the press is that he has issued many of them with threats that if they write negative pieces about the GPA he will organise players to boycott all interview attempts by those newspapers and media outlets. Fact.

[The key part of the rule is "the playing of Gaelic games". So Club Energise ads and appearance fees are already allowed, believe it or not. Manager payments aren't. It doesn't matter who pays, if you receive money fir playing a game you breach Rule 11.]

* Our Rule 11 ("a player ... shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games") is blown asunder
         This one is arguable in my mind. If the GAA are not paying them, does it count? I would suggest the image rights and Club Energise ads have already created precedent for external bodies paying money to players. Not to mention the elephant in the room in the shape of Appearance 'fees' or Manager payments
The key part of the rule is "the playing of Gaelic games". So Club Energise ads and appearance fees are already allowed, believe it or not. Manager payments aren't. It doesn't matter who pays, if you receive money fir playing a game you breach Rule 11.

    * Under EU law, the players' GAA activity will become an economic activity and be subject to EU commercial law: our fundamental GAA principles and rules about eligibility; transfers; and so on will go out the window. Players will be able to move as they/sponsors/whoever sees fit. And they'll hold "restraint of trade" powers over GAA Committees at Club and County level. It wouldn't happen? Look at the Bosman; Deliege; Meca-Medina; and Kolpac cases at the European Court of Justice.
        Again, arguable, and you would probably have to take a test case to see exactly how it would be viewed. But I don't think the statement itself is rubbish, nor do I think it is an undeniable fact.
Ok.

    * Our amateur status will be gone and it won't be coming back. Those behind the grants deal say it "copper-fastens" our amateur status. European commercial case law says something totally different. Which of them do you think will turn out to be right?
        This is an amalgamation of the first two. The one thing I would say is that I agree that this deal does not 'copper fasten' amateurism.
Snap.

    * For the first time in GAA history we will have two classes of GAA players/members ... those who pay for the games and those who are paid to play them.
        rhetoric, but it has a basis in fact. I don't know if it's the first time though.
I'm pretty certain it would be.

    * We'll have established the principle that inter-County players get money because of who they are. That process won't stop.
        I agree with this.
Snap.

    * There will be no moral nor legal justification for not paying the teams' backroom people ... then the team liaison people ... then our County Committee people ... then
        This is a bit of a reach
I disagree. Everyone starts to question, 'if he's worth that, why I am not?'. In fact it's already happening. And in fairness, it is partly to blame for some players' dissatisfaction.

    * For the first time in GAA history single decisions by referees; umpires; linesmen; and fixture-makers will decide into whose pockets tens of thousands of euros will go
        True, and I hadn't thought of it like that. Not sure of the 10s of thousands though
Ditto.

    * Illicit "sponsors" will be able to offer teams cash prizes for winning things: the EU "economic activity" reality will mean we can't stop it
        Why would the grants have any bearing on this whatsoever?
This goes back to the first point. If you accept the argument that it doesn't breach Rule 11 if the GAA doesn't pay the money, then it is effectively giving open season to outside parties to pay money to players to play.

    * Once the government pulls its funding (as it inevitably will) the GAA will have to pick up the bill
        Bingo. This is what I fear most, and the can of worms which will be opened by that happening
True. But it's not what I fear most.

    * Club players picked for their County will have a clear financial incentive not to risk injury at Club level. The Club/County divide will grow dramatically.
       Agree, although I don't think it will be a moajor issue. I'm sure some lads on the verge of the county panel will be careful about this
I'd say it will. Clubs don't like it when the players they've nurtured are made unavailable to them by county constraints.

    * Any chance we have of tackling the poison (and it is a poison) of paid managers in the GAA will be gone
        This smacks a little of opportunism. Why did it take a players' grant to get them exercised about managers being paid.
Disagree with you AZ. If players receive a grant which many believe breaches Rule 11, then it will be very hard to justify taking action against a paid manager. Why not exercised before now? I'd say because they thought our top officials were still keen to deal with this issue. Just a couple of years ago Nicky Brennan made ominous noises about this.

    * Volunteers will increasingly say: "I'm off!" They have in every other sport where payment was introduced. Just look at Club rugby in Ireland (if you can find it) ten years after pay-for-play came in.
        Possibly, but club rugby is actually still going on, and they have their dedicated club members and ground etc. etc. That hasn't changed. The change has mostly been in the playing end of things where being affiliated with a club means very little unless you are coming back from injury, a lá Paul O'Connell and Young Munster. The (if you can find it) dig was childish and unnecessary.
There are now far less players and volunteers in club rugby than there were before professionalism.

We were told that this Duffy man was a safe pair of hands and all the rest, but he seems to be seriously deluded.

He has told us all along that the grants do not breach Rule 11, but what legal evidence has he provided? We're supposed to go against any logical reading of Rule 11 simply because he says so.

Sorry Mr Duffy, no can do.

And as for this statement:

"I would be surprised if county boards made a decision on a document that they haven't seen."

Didn't Central Council make a decision to support a document it hadn't seen, just two weeks ago?