gaaboard.com

Can anyone post the article? I dont know if this is worthy of a thread on its own but Mods can feel free to move it.

(http://www.irishnews.com/webimages/20080314/sportsnews1.jpg)

One of the leading GAA clubs in Ulster has voted in favour of the players' grants scheme. Ballinderry, the All-Ireland football champions in 2002, have backed the proposed awards initiative that will provide annual payments to players ranging from E1,400 to E2,600.

Having established themselves as the main force in Derry football, the Loughshore club has a major

presence in the Oak Leaf county squad. Kevin McGuckin, Enda Muldoon, James Conway, Colin Devlin, Niall McCusker, Michael McIver, Conleith Gilligan and Raymond Wilkinson are currently in Paddy Crozier's panel.

The club's chairman Camillus Quinn said yesterday: "We support the principle of our eight county players being recognised in the form of an award by the Irish government."

At a recent monthly meeting, the club's committee discussed the grants issue and agreed unanimously that the proposed scheme didn't breach the rules which protect the GAA's amateur status.

Ballinderry's stance on this issue contradicts the view of the Derry County Board, whose delegates will vote against the grants scheme at next month's Annual Congress.

A motion from the Faughanvale club in north Derry that opposes the grants was passed at the Derry county convention.

However, Quinn noted that when his club's committee debated the issue there was, "100 per cent agreement that the grants scheme didn't broach the amateur status and that it wasn't breaking Rule 11".

Quinn added: "It's not GAA money. It's not coming out of Croke Park. It's coming from the Irish government."

The Ballinderry club consulted with their county players before the meeting and Quinn stated that all eight of them confirmed that they had never considered any form of strike in relation to the grants controversy.

The Ballinderry players have also indicated that they are willing to give a portion of any grant they might receive to their club.

Welcoming the players' gesture, Quinn said: "We are very proud of the large representation of our club on the Derry senior football squad and we accept their generous offer to contribute a proportion of any award to our adult players' fund."

The 'Of One Belief' group, which argues that the grants scheme breaches the GAA's amateur status, takes its case to the DRA tonight. It's understood that the hearing is set to continue tomorrow.

Quinn insisted that the committee members of Ballinderry Shamrocks GAC "respected" the views of the anti-grants group, but that

ultimately they had placed their trust in the GAA's officialdom.

He said: "We have faith in the leadership of the GAA at the highest levels and are confident that the players' awards scheme will not infringe Rule 11 or damage the unique amateur status of our Association in any way."

Sourced The Irish News Online: http://www.irishnews.com/articles/597/5776/2008/3/14/582639_339468203322Ballinderr.html (http://www.irishnews.com/articles/597/5776/2008/3/14/582639_339468203322Ballinderr.html)

how did derry decide on how the county was goin to vote on grants?
thought the back page spread in irish news a bit tacky

brollys next article should be worth reading
will he have the balls to criticise the shamrocks

will he have the balls to criticise the shamrocks

Of course he - he's afraid of nothing !  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: ziggysego on March 16, 2008, 03:30:09 PM

Quinn added: "It's not GAA money. It's not coming out of Croke Park. It's coming from the Irish government."

Well thats ok then.....  ???

i like the wee star on there crest :D

Can't find the other thread, but I read the decision from the Central Council yesterday and I can't really believe it. In order to try and kill the Rule 11 debate, they have deemed that these grants will be paid in the form of 'expenses'.

This is what is written in the Star (I know I know, but every paper is as bad as each other at this stage)

'It was decided that the grants, or awards, would be given as expenses, which means the GAA's rule 11, which governs amateur status, will not be breached. Under the agreement the money will be paid out to cover the the difference in the GAA's travelling expenses, which are 50 cent a mile, and the Civil Service's, which is over €1. Players will have to account for these expenses which will be worth between €1,500 and €2,500 a year depending on how far their team goes in the Championship'


I don't know where to start.. I mean this seems to put these grants even more centre stage in terms of the GAA's internal workings, instead of quite clearly differentiating between the money from GAA sources (hitherto expenses) and the new Grants.

Secondly, how will students and the like be able to 'account' for these expenses if they don't own a car. Does the notion of 'mileage' expenses not imply some sort of cost on the person and their car? What  about someone living at home?

thirdly, why the Civil Service rate? It seems like they just looked around until they found a rate that 'fitted' and plugged it in there.

This seems to be an amazing decision, made in the face of the OOB opposition. I just don't know what they are thinking.

I wonder what the Revenue Commissioners and HM Inland Revenue in the North will make of this? I can't help thinking that another Pandora's box has been opened...

This President's administration is getting more farcical than George W. Bush's, as it lurches from one bizarre decision to another even more bizarre. Bush - waterboarding is not torture; GAA administration - grants are not now grants, they're "expenses". For both maladministrating circuses, it seems to be a case of anything to avoid putting the administration's mismanagement under scrutiny by the electorate.

At a time when we're losing many players to other sports is it really such a bad thing if we reward our best players who stay with a couple of thousand euro a year. Its a nice we perk for the players who train hard all year and are faced with the pressure of being scrutinised every time they go on the field by thousands of supporters. Lets face it in the current climate a couple of thousand euro is hardly going to turn any player into a professional - it wouldnt even pay for a night out once a week. As long as its upfront and transparent and all county players are treated the same  then I dont think its as big an issue as is being made out.

Other arguments aside, I have been suprised at Brennan's Presidency, it has been brutal.  Then again many on here thought Kelly was the worst President ever.

Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on March 18, 2008, 11:37:54 AM
Lets face it in the current climate a couple of thousand euro is hardly going to turn any player into a professional

Existing EU legal precedents in relation to sports grant payments to athletes suggest otherwise...

Quote- it wouldnt even pay for a night out once a week.

... regardless of how small the payments are

QuoteAs long as its upfront and transparent

there's nothing upfront and transparent about what seems to be concerted fiddling of Revenue-approved expenses allowances

Quoteand all county players are treated the same

The existing GAA/GPA proposals don't treat all county players the same.

Quotethen I dont think its as big an issue as is being made out.

There's a lot of if's and but's before you get to that conclusion.

Quote from: AZOffaly on March 18, 2008, 10:58:46 AM

I don't know where to start.. I mean this seems to put these grants even more centre stage in terms of the GAA's internal workings, instead of quite clearly differentiating between the money from GAA sources (hitherto expenses) and the new Grants.

Secondly, how will students and the like be able to 'account' for these expenses if they don't own a car. Does the notion of 'mileage' expenses not imply some sort of cost on the person and their car? What  about someone living at home?

thirdly, why the Civil Service rate? It seems like they just looked around until they found a rate that 'fitted' and plugged it in there.

This seems to be an amazing decision, made in the face of the OOB opposition. I just don't know what they are thinking.

Agree with the first two points, but for the third one - the Civil Service rates are the rates most commonly used in the private sector (as well as the public sector obviously). Anything paid in excess of the civil service rates would be subject to tax, anything below the civil service rates would generally be considered a bit miserable...

Whatever Kelly stood for and I thought of him as poor, he still stood for something.   Brennan stands for little, he appears to be the man who history will judge unkindly because he seems now fixated with ramming through these grants.  Mark my words there will be a split in the association if these grants come into play.  It will become a choice between  club or county for the player and supporter, the business will be done in different ways, support bases will change,  If thats the type of GAA ye want then thats fine, it will no longer be unique.
as for Balinderry Shamerocks They never knew whether they were Derry or Tyrone men either, would it be wrong to say they lack the principled positioning of most clubs on these matters?

Quote from: cornafean on March 18, 2008, 12:08:27 PM

Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on March 18, 2008, 11:37:54 AM
Lets face it in the current climate a couple of thousand euro is hardly going to turn any player into a professional

Existing EU legal precedents in relation to sports grant payments to athletes suggest otherwise...

No matter how many times you trot out this eu law precendent nonsense it won't make it fact. there are precendents leaning in both directions suggesting similar thinking may apply in this case. however, there are no rulings which directly translate as the GAA is an organisation and a tradition which is not replicated anywhere else in europe.

Quote from: cornafean on March 18, 2008, 12:08:27 PMthere's nothing upfront and transparent about what seems to be concerted fiddling of Revenue-approved expenses allowances

Are you for real? the word seems is always a great indicator of how sure a poster i of his ground. the gaa is not going to conspire to screw the revenue with anyone.

Quote from: cornafean on March 18, 2008, 12:08:27 PMThe existing GAA/GPA proposals don't treat all county players the same.

In what way?

Quote from: Hound on March 18, 2008, 12:10:26 PM
Agree with the first two points, but for the third one - the Civil Service rates are the rates most commonly used in the private sector (as well as the public sector obviously). Anything paid in excess of the civil service rates would be subject to tax, anything below the civil service rates would generally be considered a bit miserable...

The essence of civil service expenses rates are that they must apply to individual cases. They are automatically invalid if they are applied on an across the board basis without references to actual distances travelled.

For example in Roscommon, a player who travels from Dublin to Dr Hyde Park for training travels x number of miles and is entitled to x*y in mileage payments where y is the agreed mileage rate. So far so good. However a problem arises in relation to a player who lives in Roscommon town and who will not be entitled to any expenses for his "trip". 

If expenses are paid in breach of the Revenue rules, which are explained in depth on the Revenue leaflet IT51 available on Revenue.ie  then the payment, or any excess over the tax-free limit, are automatically treated as taxable pay - which leaves us back exactly where we started...

http://www.revenue.ie/leaflets/it51.htm

Quote
Expenses which are incurred by employees in travelling to and fromthe place of
employment are not allowable for tax purposes and any re-imbursement of
these expenses must be treated as pay.

Quote from: Uladh on March 18, 2008, 12:18:16 PM
No matter how many times you trot out this eu law precendent nonsense it won't make it fact.

We will agree to differ

Quotethere are precendents leaning in both directions suggesting similar thinking may apply in this case.

Really? Name one please.

Quotethe GAA is an organisation and a tradition which is not replicated anywhere else in europe.

There are plenty of amateur sporting organisations in Europe.

QuoteAre you for real?

Yes

Quotethe word seems is always a great indicator of how sure a poster i of his ground. the gaa is not going to conspire to screw the revenue with anyone.

see my most recent post for clarification on this point

QuoteThe existing GAA/GPA proposals don't treat all county players the same.

In what way?

Players on "last 12 in championship" county panels get paid more than those on other panels

Quote from: cornafean on March 18, 2008, 12:28:21 PM

Quotethere are precendents leaning in both directions suggesting similar thinking may apply in this case.

Really? Name one please.

I cn't because every time i see tem thrown up in an argument i dismiss them as i do thoe in the opposite direction because none of them apply to our association.

Players on "last 12 in championship" county panels get paid more than those on other panels
[/quote]

Quote from: cornafean on March 18, 2008, 12:28:21 PM
Players on "last 12 in championship" county panels get paid more than those on other panels

No, teams that go further in the championship train and play further into the year therefore incur further expense. the same opportunity to progress is there for each county in may, is it not?

Quote from: Uladh on March 18, 2008, 12:37:18 PM
I cn't because every time i see tem thrown up in an argument i dismiss them as i do thoe in the opposite direction because none of them apply to our association.

So you're willing to argue that precedents "in the opposite direction" exist but then you say that "none of them apply to our association." Clear as mud...

Quote
No, teams that go further in the championship train and play further into the year therefore incur further expense.

But hardly in direct correlation to their average mileage in any particular season - especially as panels will have been training since well before Christmas and the first few rounds of qualifiers take place within a few weeks in July.

Quote
the same opportunity to progress is there for each county in may, is it not?

Antrim might argue differently. They need to win 3 games this year before even reaching the provincial final in contrast with several teams in Connacht & Munster who need only win one game to get as far. As they are a Division 4 team, they are not entitled to play in the qualifiers unless they do so.

I expected Brennan to be a good President but sadly it looks like my expectations were misplaced. I'm really disappointed.

We're actually one month from electing a new President. Lets hope we get a guy who stands up for the foot soldiers.

This fudge would be a joke if it wasn't so serious and its shameful for Central Council to come out with this rubbish. Must stick in a claim at civil service rates for all the driving to meetings, matches etc I've done over the years....

Quote from: cornafean on March 18, 2008, 12:48:26 PM

Quote from: Uladh on March 18, 2008, 12:37:18 PM
I cn't because every time i see tem thrown up in an argument i dismiss them as i do thoe in the opposite direction because none of them apply to our association.

So you're willing to argue that precedents "in the opposite direction" exist but then you say that "none of them apply to our association." Clear as mud...

No, i'm saying that precedents exist in both directions which people claim apply here. i disagree with both sides on the grounds that the GAA and our structures are not replicated anywhere else.

You do not make a realistic argument on your other two points.

There is no mention in todays Indo of any attempt to restructure the grants deal. I wonder if the Star story is a leg-pull? It certainly sounds odd...

Its amazing that 24 hours after the Central Council meeting finished that the gaa.ie website has absolutely no detail on the proposals.

Quote from: cornafean on March 18, 2008, 01:32:48 PM
There is no mention in todays Indo of any attempt to restructure the grants deal. I wonder if the Star story is a leg-pull? It certainly sounds odd...

Its amazing that 24 hours after the Central Council meeting finished that the gaa.ie website has absolutely no detail on the proposals.

Wouldn't be the first time. Or maybe the Indo, through Breheny, is trying to think of some way to spin this without it sounding ludicrous. Good luck with that.

Are Ballinderry now entitled to a priority position on GAA ethics/rule definition due to their success? Is it a case of the more inter-county players you have the more your point is valid?

If they had no intention to strike it's a bit rich saying it now, it's disgusting actually.

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 18, 2008, 01:00:07 PM
This fudge would be a joke if it wasn't so serious and its shameful for Central Council to come out with this rubbish. Must stick in a claim at civil service rates for all the driving to meetings, matches etc I've done over the years....

Yes, indeed. Methinks the green-eyed monster is very central to the argument.

Quote from: cornafean on March 18, 2008, 12:24:23 PM

Quote from: Hound on March 18, 2008, 12:10:26 PM
Agree with the first two points, but for the third one - the Civil Service rates are the rates most commonly used in the private sector (as well as the public sector obviously). Anything paid in excess of the civil service rates would be subject to tax, anything below the civil service rates would generally be considered a bit miserable...

The essence of civil service expenses rates are that they must apply to individual cases. They are automatically invalid if they are applied on an across the board basis without references to actual distances travelled.

For example in Roscommon, a player who travels from Dublin to Dr Hyde Park for training travels x number of miles and is entitled to x*y in mileage payments where y is the agreed mileage rate. So far so good. However a problem arises in relation to a player who lives in Roscommon town and who will not be entitled to any expenses for his "trip". 

If expenses are paid in breach of the Revenue rules, which are explained in depth on the Revenue leaflet IT51 available on Revenue.ie  then the payment, or any excess over the tax-free limit, are automatically treated as taxable pay - which leaves us back exactly where we started...

http://www.revenue.ie/leaflets/it51.htm

Quote
Expenses which are incurred by employees in travelling to and fromthe place of
employment are not allowable for tax purposes and any re-imbursement of
these expenses must be treated as pay.

Not sure what you're talking about. There won't be a cent paid over Revenue limits. Thats the point the GAA are making.
With the miniscule amounts we're talking about it will be no problem running up expenses to the limit of the grant for most players. As AZ rightly said earlier, there may be some players, e.g. lads with no cars, who might not actually incur enough.... But from what I gather if you're a guy who's only expense is bus fair, and you get all your gear and meals and longer distance travel looked after as it is, then it looks like you won't get the full grant..... which in itself might lead to different problems..   

QuoteMethinks the green-eyed monster is very central to the argument.

No Hound, that's not it - certainly not with me anyway. I wouldn't want it. I'm happy to do what I do. Sure you get pissed off at times but I wouldn't be involved if I didn't love it and get a kick out of it.

Lets be honest here - dressing this up as extra expenses is a complete whitewash. A cute hoor way of presenting things maybe but I still reckon if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its fairly likely that its a duck.

I agree with your and AZ's assessment of the possible issue in the case of a lad who doesn't drive but i'm sure some other cute hoor way round that will be found to get him his wages errr expenses.

Quote from: Uladh on March 18, 2008, 01:04:08 PM


No, i'm saying that precedents exist in both directions which people claim apply here. i disagree with both sides on the grounds that the GAA and our structures are not replicated anywhere else.

What has that got to do with it? A player gets paid, their legal status changes. The GAA's structure has SFA to so with it. How does the internal structure and ethos of a body effect whether its professional or not?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 18, 2008, 03:56:22 PM

Quote from: Uladh on March 18, 2008, 01:04:08 PM


No, i'm saying that precedents exist in both directions which people claim apply here. i disagree with both sides on the grounds that the GAA and our structures are not replicated anywhere else.

What has that got to do with it? A player gets paid, their legal status changes. The GAA's structure has SFA to so with it. How does the internal structure and ethos of a body effect whether its professional or not?

shows how little you know about gaa if you think the gaa's structure has nothing to do with the grants issue.
you should keep quiet on things like this, you are showing yourself up.

Quote from: behind the wire on March 18, 2008, 04:08:13 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 18, 2008, 03:56:22 PM

Quote from: Uladh on March 18, 2008, 01:04:08 PM


No, i'm saying that precedents exist in both directions which people claim apply here. i disagree with both sides on the grounds that the GAA and our structures are not replicated anywhere else.

What has that got to do with it? A player gets paid, their legal status changes. The GAA's structure has SFA to so with it. How does the internal structure and ethos of a body effect whether its professional or not?

shows how little you know about gaa if you think the gaa's structure has nothing to do with the grants issue.
you should keep quiet on things like this, you are showing yourself up.

thats not the point being discussed. payment, from whatever source, means that the legal framework changes. the GAA's structure matters what to that simple fact?

one of the core principles on which the gaa's structure is based will now be changed. thats how the gaa's structure will be relevant in all this.

at the moment all gaa members are the same. with the grants coming into effect this will change as one group of memers will be different to the rest of us.

the fact that you cannot identify this basic approach shows that you have little knowledge of the gaa. there is a serious debate going on at present among gaa members regarding this issue and people like soccerfella stirring things up when they have little or know knowledge is unhelpful.

and before you start, you are entitled to your opinion but unfortunately due to your obvious want to constantly stir things up coupled with your limited knowledge of gaa your opinion carries little weight and in some cases is simply unhelpful.

Quote from: behind the wire on March 18, 2008, 04:41:35 PM
one of the core principles on which the gaa's structure is based will now be changed. thats how the gaa's structure will be relevant in all this.

at the moment all gaa members are the same. with the grants coming into effect this will change as one group of memers will be different to the rest of us.

the fact that you cannot identify this basic approach shows that you have little knowledge of the gaa. there is a serious debate going on at present among gaa members regarding this issue and people like soccerfella stirring things up when they have little or know knowledge is unhelpful.

and before you start, you are entitled to your opinion but unfortunately due to your obvious want to constantly stir things up coupled with your limited knowledge of gaa your opinion carries little weight and in some cases is simply unhelpful.

I know all this you twat, I'm asking you what LEGAL exemption the GAA's structure has when employment law becomes an issue.

Try reading what I said

personal abuse tut tut tut. i know a few boys that got banned for less!

the possible effect on gaa structure from a legal point of view has been well documented by the ofonebelief group (ie economic activity, transfers etc - all impacting upon gaa structure), a few of whom happen to be fairly high profile members of the legal profession.

again your limited knowledge of the issue is coming back to haunt you. in fact i would think it safe to say that your contribution to this board - a gaa board - is close to worthless. the ordinary members can slearly see that you have ulterior motives in that you appear to extract some form of deranged pleasure from highlighting negative gaa news at almost all available opportunities.

tankie has also identified this on another thread.

most of us, yes most of us on this board are gaa members. we dont agree with each other all the time, but at the end of the day we all enjoy being associated in some way with the gaa. we recognise that our association is far from perfect however im sure we will all agree that we do not need a soccer loving gaa hating eejit (personal abuse, i know) identifying the problems for us. although you do start debates your chronic lack of knowledge on basic gaa principles is laughable.

best of luck to rovers this season. maybe when you are making your 'f*** off and die banners' you can have a bit of debate about the grants issue surrounding the gaa with some like minded people. 

From Hoganstand.com, referenced by AnReiteoir on anfearrua.com

Again not a dickybird as yet on gaa.ie...




Government Grants distribution
18 March 2008

ANNUAL TEAM PERFORMANCE SCHEME AND ANNUAL SUPPORT SCHEME FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXCELLENCE
IN THE INDIGENOUS SPORTS OF HURLING AND GAELIC FOOTBALL

1. Introduction

The Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism has provided the funds to allow the Irish Sports Council to introduce the schemes ("the Schemes"), details of which are set out below to recognise the outstanding contribution of Gaelic inter-county players to our indigenous sport, to meet additional costs associated with elite team performance and to encourage aspiring teams and players to reach the highest levels of sporting endeavour.

2. Rationale

Gaelic senior inter-county players provide the window through which our national games are viewed nationally and internationally. It is recognised that successful teams prepare and train to highest international standards for team sports. It is also recognised that the current scheme of tax relief for professional sports people does not apply to Gaelic players because of their amateur status. The Schemes will be based on participation in the GAA All-Ireland football championship and the GAA All-Ireland hurling championship ("the Championships").

3. Definitions

For the purposes of the Schemes:-

Central Council Means the Central Council of the GAA.
Championship Season Means in relation to an inter-county team the period commencing 1 May and ending on the date that the team ceases to participate in the Championships.
Eligible Expenses Means vouched expenses (including but not limited to appropriate mileage expenses) incurred by a player in a Relevant Year in the course of compliance by him with the requirements of paragraph 7.2 (Conditions applicable to players personally).
However, such expenses must be in accordance with the standard rates in respect of such expenses as are from time to time approved by Central Council.
Eligible Expenses do not include expenses to the extent that those expenses have already been reimbursed or discharged by the County Committee. However, where an expense has partly been discharged by the County Committee, the balance of that expense may be included in Eligible Expenses.
Maximum Refund Has the meaning given in paragraph 8.4 (Refund of Eligible Expenses).
National Scheme Committee Means the National Scheme Committee referred to in paragraph 9.1
Panel Means in relation to an inter-county team participating in a Championship the players from time to time on the Panel of players recognised by the Team Committee as being the players from which the team is chosen, and may include injured players retained on that Panel.
Reference Amount Means in relation to a player the amount set out in the second column of Schedule 1 opposite the performance position achieved by his Panel as set out in the first column.
Relevant Year Means the period commencing 1 January of the relevant Championship Season and ending at the end of the Championship Season.
Refund Amount Has the meaning given in paragraph 8.2 (Refund Amount).
Scheme Points Means the number of points allocated in accordance with paragraph 8.3 (Scheme Points) to a player for the purpose of calculating his share of the Total Panel Amount appropriate to his team set out in Schedule 1.
Team Committee Means in relation to an inter-county team, the County Panels Finance Sub-Committee or such other body or person as is from time to time designated by the National Scheme Committee in relation to that team.
Team Development Account Has the meaning given in paragraph 10 (Team Development Account).
Total Panel Amount Means in relation to a Panel the amount set out in the third column of Schedule 1opposite the performance position achieved by the Panel as set out in the first column.

4. The Schemes

4.1. Annual Team Performance Scheme

The Annual Team Performance Scheme will be based on the performance of teams during the Championships and will apply to the twelve GAA football teams qualifying for the third round of the All Ireland Qualifier Series or reaching a provincial final and the twelve hurling teams participating in the McCarthy Cup.

4.2. Annual Support Scheme for the development of excellence

The Annual Support Scheme for the development of excellence will be based on the achievement of standards and performance based criteria designed to raise/maintain the levels of preparation of the teams and individuals. This Scheme shall apply to teams participating in the Championships, but not qualifying for the Team Performance Scheme.

5. Funding

An amount of ?3.5m will be provided in 2008 to fund the Schemes. The amount required to fund the Schemes in subsequent years shall be determined by the Minister. The Irish Sports Council shall transfer that amount to Central Council for the account of the National Scheme Committee following the furnishing of such accounts and supporting documentation as the Irish Sports Council shall require.

6. Development Plans

The GAA will publish a template of a development plan to be adopted by each Team Committee in relation to each of the county's Championship teams following the approval of that template by the National Scheme Committee. That template will include amongst other items the following:-

6.1. key performance indicators for the team. These indicators will include Panel targets and objectives;

6.2. formulation of an appropriate training regime for the Panel ;

6.3. provision of comprehensive information and advice on the anti-doping code;

6.4. provision as appropriate of qualified personnel to enhance player/team development including advice and support in all aspects of team and individual fitness, nutrition, health and wellbeing associated with the playing of the games;

6.5. presence of certified medical personnel at all inter-county games;

6.6. regular fitness testing of players;

6.7. setting of minimum requirements in respect of injured players to demonstrate that they are participating satisfactorily in rehabilitation;

6.8. participation by players in coaching and games development work in the county on a voluntary basis and in initiatives at county and national level to promote their sports as a healthy activity for all ages;

6.9. establishment of a code of conduct to which all players and team management are required to adhere;

6.10. acceptance by the Team Committee and the team management of the charter for inter-county teams to be published by the GAA and as amended from time to time;

6.11. establishment of a system to take account of players joining or departing from the Panel.

7. Conditions of eligibility for participation in the Schemes

A player shall not be entitled to participate in the Schemes unless his team is one of the teams to which the Schemes apply and the conditions set out below applicable to his team and to the player personally have been fulfilled.

7.1. Conditions applicable to the team

7.1.1. The Team Committee has adopted a development plan in accordance with the template and has submitted that plan to the National Scheme Committee in accordance with such procedures and timetable as are specified by the National Scheme Committee from time to time.

7.1.2. The Team Committee furnishes such evidence as is, from time to time, required by the National Scheme Committee to demonstrate compliance with the development plan.

7.2. Conditions applicable to players personally

The Team Committee and/or the player concerned (as required by the National Scheme Committee) makes such returns and furnishes such evidence as is, from time to time, specified by the National Scheme Committee to demonstrate compliance by the player concerned with the following requirements:-

7.2.1. attendance at at least 80% of all training sessions and matches of the team in the Championship Season;

Where a player is injured and is excused by the team management from attendance, the minimum attendance will be 80% of all training sessions and matches other than those for which the player has been excused.

7.2.2. demonstrating in accordance with the development plan of improvement in fitness through regular testing;

7.2.3. strict compliance with the anti-doping code;

7.2.4. in the case of injured players, demonstrating in accordance with the development plan that the player is participating satisfactorily in rehabilitation;

7.2.5. commitment to participate in coaching and games development work in his county on a voluntary basis;

7.2.6. in cooperation with the Local Sports Partnerships, a commitment to visit schools and youth facilities as part of an overall policy to promote increased participation in his sport;

7.2.7. involvement as is from time to time reasonably required in initiatives at county and national level to promote his sport as a healthy activity for all ages.


8. Refund of Eligible Expenses

8.1. Basis of Schemes

The Schemes will operate by way of refund of Eligible Expenses in accordance with the provisions set out below and by way of the payment to the Team Development Fund in accordance with clause 10 (Team Development Fund). The structure of the Schemes recognises that the longer a player's team is involved in the Championship, the greater the expenses that will be incurred by the player. Although the total of funding available to a team is calculated by reference to 30 players per Panel, it is recognised that there may be more than 30 players per Panel and that there may be players whose participation on the Panel is only for part of a Championship Season.

8.2. Refund Amount

A player shall be entitled to a refund of Eligible Expenses (his "Refund Amount") up to the lesser of his Reference Amount and his Maximum Refund.

8.3. Scheme Points

A player will be credited with 100 Schemes Points if he has been on the Panel for the entirety of the Championship Season. Where a player has been on the Panel for part only of the Championship Season, he shall be entitled to 20 Scheme Points for each one fifth part of the Championship Season that he has been on the Panel, rounded up to the nearest fifth part.

8.4. Maximum Refund

The Maximum Refund to which a player is entitled is that part of the relevant Total Panel Amount that is in the same proportion that his Scheme Points bear to the total Scheme Points of his Panel.

8.5. Dual players

A player who is on the Panel of both the hurling and football teams of his county shall elect, prior to making an application for a refund of Eligible Expenses in respect of a year under the Schemes, the team in respect of which he intends to make an application. For the purpose of this Scheme, the player shall be deemed not to have been part of the Panel of the other team. In no circumstances may a player claim a refund of expenses in relation to two Panels.

8.6. Unclaimed Expenses

In the event that a player or players do not claim the refund of Eligible Expenses up to the Refund Amount, either in whole or in part, the amount not so claimed shall be dealt with in accordance with paragraph 10 (Team Development Account) and shall not be added to the amount claimable by the other members of the Panel calculated in accordance with paragraph 8.4 (Maximum Refund).

8.7. Total Panel Amount

In no circumstances shall the amount of Eligible Expenses refunded under the Schemes to a Panel exceed the Total Panel Amount of that Panel as set out in Schedule 1.

9. Administration of the Schemes

9.1. National Scheme Committee

The National Scheme Committee will comprise three nominees of Central Council, one of whom shall be the chairperson, and two nominees of the GPA. The National Scheme Committee shall regulate their meetings as they see fit. The quorum for the transaction of business shall be three, one of whom shall be a nominee of the GPA and one of whom shall be a nominee of Central Council. The National Scheme Committee may have meetings by telephone, either by conference telephone connections or by a series of telephone conversations, or by exchange of facsimile or email transmissions and addressed to the chairman. The views of the National Scheme Committee, as ascertained by such telephone conversations or facsimile or email transmissions, and communicated to the chairman, shall be treated as votes in favour of or against a particular resolution. A resolution passed at any meeting held in this manner and signed by the chairman shall be as valid and effectual as if it had been passed at a meeting of the National Scheme Committee duly convened and held.

9.2. Procedures

The National Scheme Committee shall be responsible for the administration of the Schemes and shall determine from time to time the procedures and regulations to be followed in connection with the making and processing of applications for refunds under the Schemes and in connection with the establishment of Team Development Accounts, the application of the funds paid to Team Development Accounts under the Schemes and the administration of the Schemes generally.


10. Team Development Account

10.1. Approval of Team Development Account

In relation to each Panel, the Team Development Fund shall be such account of the Team Committee as is from time to time approved by the National Scheme Committee, subject to such conditions, regulations and procedures as may from time to time be set out by the National Scheme Committee in relation to any such Team Development Account.

10.2. Payments to Team Development Fund

To the extent that the Total Panel Amount in respect of a Panel has not been claimed by players on the Panel,(being a Panel to which the Schemes apply and in respect of which the provisions of paragraph 7.1 (Conditions Applicable to the Team) have been fulfilled) has not been claimed by Players on that Panel, the balance shall be paid to by the National Scheme Committee to the Team Development Account .

10.3. Implementation of Development Plan

The funds paid under the Schemes to a Team Development Account shall be applied in implementation of the relevant development plan submitted pursuant to clause 7.1 (Conditions applicable to the Team). The Team Committee shall account to the National Scheme Committee in relation to the application of the funds under the Schemes paid to the Team Development Account in such manner as is reasonably required from time to time by the National Scheme Committee.

11. Miscellaneous Provisions

11.1. Schemes additional to existing funding

The Schemes are additional to and will not negatively impact upon existing funding or any future funding provided by the Government to the GAA through the Irish Sports Council or otherwise.

11.2. Amateur status of GAA not affected

Nothing in the Schemes is intended to or shall be implemented so as to undermine that amateur status or to be in conflict with rule 11 of the Official Guide of the GAA.

11.3. Acknowledgements of GPA

The GPA has acknowledged that:-

11.3.1. the refund of expenses as contemplated by the Schemes shall only apply for so long as government funding is made available for that purpose, will cease when and if Government funding ceases, that there is no responsibility on the GAA to continue funding the Schemes in that event and that no such request will be made by the GPA;

11.3.2. it recognizes that the GAA is an amateur association and their absolute commitment to the maintenance of the amateur status of the GAA and that nothing in the Schemes is intended to or shall be implemented so as to undermine that amateur status or to be in conflict with rule 11 of the Official Guide of the GAA.

11.4. Tax liability

The Schemes are intended to reimburse vouched expenses only to the extent that such reimbursement does not give rise to a liability to tax. However each player shall account to the Revenue Commissioners for any taxation payable in respect of the sums payable to him pursuant to the Schemes and shall make such returns in relation to such payments as are required by law.

11.5. Player welfare

This Scheme does not affect the responsibility of the GAA for the welfare of its players.

11.6. Independent review

The Schemes shall be subject to independent review every three years to be carried out under the aegis of Irish Sports Council. Arising from that review, the Minister may revoke or alter one or more of the Schemes in such manner as the Minister considers appropriate.

11.7. Entitlement to vary Schemes

The Minister may alter the terms of the Schemes from time to time.

12. Dispute resolution

In the event of any dispute or difference as to any entitlement under these Schemes, that dispute or difference shall be submitted to the National Scheme Committee for determination. Unless any party to that dispute gives notice of appeal of the determination of the National Scheme Committee within 10 days of the National Scheme Committee notifying its decision to the parties concerned, the decision of the National Scheme Committee shall be final and binding on all parties.

If notice of such appeal is given within the time referred to above, the matter shall be finally determined by an appeal committee comprised of one person nominated by Central Council, one person nominated by the GPA and one independent person appointed by agreement between the nominees of Central Council and of the GPA. The Appeal Committee shall make the determination by a majority vote, shall regulate the proceedings as it sees fit and its determination shall be final and binding upon the parties. The Appeal Committee shall act as experts and not as arbitrators. The Appeal Committee shall be entitled to determine in what proportion the costs and expenses incurred by the Appeal Committee shall be borne by the parties to the appeal.





DATE: ____________________________
SCHEDULE 1

REFERENCE AMOUNTS AND TOTAL PANEL AMOUNTS


Annual Team Performance Awards
Performance Position Reference Amount
? Total Panel Amount
?
All-Ireland SFC
Finalists 2,500 75,000
Semi-Finalists 2,300 69,009
Quarter-Finalists 2,100 63,000
Qualifiers Round 3 2,000 60,000

All-Ireland SHC
Finalists 2,500 75,000
Semi-Finalists 2,300 69,000
Quarter-Finalists 2,100 63,000
Phase 4 2,000 60,000
Phase 2/3 1,900 57,000

Annual Grant for the Development of Excellence in the Indigenous
Sports of Hurling and Gaelic Football
Performance Position Grant Amount
? Total Panel Amount
Tier 1 - All-Ireland SFC
Qualifiers Round 2 1,800 54,000
Qualifiers Round 1 1,700 51,000

Tier 2 - Tommy Murphy Cup SF
Finalists 1,700 51,000
All Other Participants 1,550 46,500

Tier 2 - Christy Ring Cup SH
Finalists 1,700 51,000
All Other Participants 1,550 46,500

Tier 3 - Nicky Rackard Cup SH
Finalists 1,500 45,000
All Other Participants 1,400 42,000

I love this bit

QuoteThe Schemes are intended to reimburse vouched expenses only to the extent that such reimbursement does not give rise to a liability to tax. However each player shall account to the Revenue Commissioners for any taxation payable in respect of the sums payable to him pursuant to the Schemes and shall make such returns in relation to such payments as are required by law.

ask soccerfella, he knows all about the legal implications etc ;D :D ;D :D

Quote from: behind the wire on March 18, 2008, 05:18:00 PM
personal abuse tut tut tut. i know a few boys that got banned for less!

the possible effect on gaa structure from a legal point of view has been well documented by the ofonebelief group (ie economic activity, transfers etc - all impacting upon gaa structure), a few of whom happen to be fairly high profile members of the legal profession.

again your limited knowledge of the issue is coming back to haunt you. in fact i would think it safe to say that your contribution to this board - a gaa board - is close to worthless. the ordinary members can slearly see that you have ulterior motives in that you appear to extract some form of deranged pleasure from highlighting negative gaa news at almost all available opportunities.

tankie has also identified this on another thread.

most of us, yes most of us on this board are gaa members. we dont agree with each other all the time, but at the end of the day we all enjoy being associated in some way with the gaa. we recognise that our association is far from perfect however im sure we will all agree that we do not need a soccer loving gaa hating eejit (personal abuse, i know) identifying the problems for us. although you do start debates your chronic lack of knowledge on basic gaa principles is laughable.

best of luck to rovers this season. maybe when you are making your 'f*** off and die banners' you can have a bit of debate about the grants issue surrounding the gaa with some like minded people. 

Right then, explain to me where I am wrong. The bit when someone can approach the European COurt of Justice and say "We are the GAA, employment law doenst apply to us because of our structures".

Its inane naivity to think that the GAA are somehow going to be different to any other sports body when this happens.

As someone who has been spent many a year avoiding the tax man, if the issuer of the money warns you that you are liable for the tax owed on the money, then it falls under EU legislation.
Unfortunately EU legislation then views that as pay for play, and means that any player is then free to transfer to play anywhere else otherwise the GAA is in breach of his or her right to freedom of movement of labour. GAA rulebook is superseded by EU legislation, that is all there is too it.

Quote from: heganboy on March 18, 2008, 09:06:57 PM
As someone who has been spent many a year avoiding the tax man, if the issuer of the money warns you that you are liable for the tax owed on the money, then it falls under EU legislation.
Unfortunately EU legislation then views that as pay for play, and means that any player is then free to transfer to play anywhere else otherwise the GAA is in breach of his or her right to freedom of movement of labour. GAA rulebook is superseded by EU legislation, that is all there is too it.

correct

Quote from: behind the wire on March 18, 2008, 10:36:49 PM

Quote from: heganboy on March 18, 2008, 09:06:57 PM
As someone who has been spent many a year avoiding the tax man, if the issuer of the money warns you that you are liable for the tax owed on the money, then it falls under EU legislation.
Unfortunately EU legislation then views that as pay for play, and means that any player is then free to transfer to play anywhere else otherwise the GAA is in breach of his or her right to freedom of movement of labour. GAA rulebook is superseded by EU legislation, that is all there is too it.

correct

correct my arse.

What kinda feckin eejits are yis?

Total nonsense.

1. Being warned you may be liable for tax is an absolute normal caveat. Pure and utter nonsense to say that this brings it within EU legilsation. Everything will be settled under Irish law. Only if there is still disagreement, one side, if they wish, can go to the EU courts. But thats the same for everything.

2. The GAA will be paying no more than vouched civil service expense rates. They have received confirmation from Revenue that if this is done as intended, there will be no tax liability.

3. The GAA have received a written opinion from Senior Counsel that there is no issue with European law. So finally those couple of "experts" who keep going on about EU law meaning the players are now professional, have their answer.

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 18, 2008, 02:45:53 PM
Lets be honest here - dressing this up as extra expenses is a complete whitewash. A cute hoor way of presenting things maybe but I still reckon if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its fairly likely that its a duck.

I agree with your and AZ's assessment of the possible issue in the case of a lad who doesn't drive but i'm sure some other cute hoor way round that will be found to get him his wages errr expenses.

Indeed, but in fairness to the GAA, it looks like they've done a really good and thorough job.

As I've been saying from day 1, far from these grants from being the first step to professionalism as many naysayers have been repeating, the grants will ensure that the GAA stays amateur for longer. This document, which the GPA have signed up to, copperfastens it. A victory for the GAA and a victory for the GPA. Well done all.

I don't see how any right-minded person, who has read the document in full, can be against it now. Though maybe someone will surprise me!....

Quotethe grants will ensure that the GAA stays amateur for longer. This document, which the GPA have signed up to, copperfastens it.

There's this lassie I saw a couple of weeks ago that told me on numerous occasions in the past that she loved me and how much she loved me (and I think she genuinely did at the time). She's now married to some English bloke and has two kids with him!

To use the analogy I'd be less than convinced that the GPA's declaration of love for amateurism is honest (I'm sure I'm not the only sceptic on this point).

I've read the document in full and far from being convinced it worries me even more. The lengths that are being gone to by all Central Council to hide the fact that these are payments for playing intercounty football and hurling - something specifically prohibited by rule - is troubling. The lack of a wide ranging debate is also a source of concern. It appears "the grassroots" are only consulted if they're going to come up with the right answer.

I posted this on the other thread:


11.4.   Tax liability

The Schemes are intended to reimburse vouched expenses only to the extent that such reimbursement does not give rise to a liability to tax. 

Erm, how exactly is that going to be done?

I had thought the original idea of the grant was that it was a grant, not reimbursement of expenses which are already being reimbursed.

We (the GAA) have made a real mess of this 

Quote from: Smokin Joe on March 19, 2008, 09:11:08 AM
I posted this on the other thread:


11.4.   Tax liability

The Schemes are intended to reimburse vouched expenses only to the extent that such reimbursement does not give rise to a liability to tax. 

Erm, how exactly is that going to be done?

I had thought the original idea of the grant was that it was a grant, not reimbursement of expenses which are already being reimbursed.

We (the GAA) have made a real mess of this 

Now its simply an increase in (vouched) expenses. How's that making a mess? It makes things easier.

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 19, 2008, 09:05:49 AM

Quotethe grants will ensure that the GAA stays amateur for longer. This document, which the GPA have signed up to, copperfastens it.

There's this lassie I saw a couple of weeks ago that told me on numerous occasions in the past that she loved me and how much she loved me (and I think she genuinely did at the time). She's now married to some English bloke and has two kids with him!

To use the analogy I'd be less than convinced that the GPA's declaration of love for amateurism is honest (I'm sure I'm not the only sceptic on this point).

I've read the document in full and far from being convinced it worries me even more. The lengths that are being gone to by all Central Council to hide the fact that these are payments for playing intercounty football and hurling - something specifically prohibited by rule - is troubling. The lack of a wide ranging debate is also a source of concern. It appears "the grassroots" are only consulted if they're going to come up with the right answer.

I take your point, but I think you're exaggerating it. I don't know why its "troubling" in structuring the payments as expenses. Its the way the GAA have always worked, for instance when paying lads to play International Rules or with the All Stars, its always been done as expenses. The GAA have structured this so that not one player will make a cash profit from playing GAA. Under no interpretation can this construe professionalism.

There has always been and there will always be players who want to get paid for playing football. The number is ever increasing but its still very much a minority. Eventually there will be a majority, but gawd knows when. In my opinion, I am certain that the "grants" pushes that date back. If the grants go through, there will be no more talk from the GPA of pay for play (or anything that people could construe as pay for play) under the current GPA leadership.

Hound, I think this embeds the whole 'bonus' for playing intercounty even further into GAA administration. I genuinely don't have a major problem with the inter county GAA players being recognised as elite athletes, and if the Government or Sports Council wants to give them grants commensurate with the other elite athletes from other disciplines, then fair enough.

I am concerned that the GAA are getting their hands dirty in doling the money out, deciding who gets it etc etc. Not because I begrudge the money, but because I simply cannot see how they are on firm ground for an argument about the validity of these monies when the Goverment decides to pull the plug in a few years time, and because I cannot see how Dessie and the GPA will simply accept this.

In this bad case scenario, I would have hoped that the disbursement, if it were to be done by the GAA, would be so clearly designated as NOT GAA money, or not part of GAA procedures, that they would at least give themselves a solid bullwark if the grant deal itself collapses. At least the GAA could say 'It's not our money, it was never our money, it was clearly marked as not being our money, and it was given out in a clearly seperate structure and mechanism'.

But this document, in my view, has really blurred the lines between the 'normal' expenses that every inter county player is entitled to already claim, and these new 'supplementary' expenses. It will be really hard for an organisation to say 'Well, these expenses were valid, but now they are not', especially if the GPA decide to kick up a row about the expenses being reduced.

The general public and media will focus on the unfairness of it, citing that the scheme is already in situ and the GAA has made X million euro from Croker, TV rights etc etc, so it could easily be continued at the new rates.

Also, with this wordplay, it allows potentially ANY amount of money to be paid as expenses, just like those managers getting €500 a session 'expenses' at the moment, which we all agree is a bad thing. I think that instead of closing off a loophole, they have opened one that even I could run through now, and I'm as slow as a wet week,

Once that particular horse bolts, it ain't coming back for anyone.

Quote from: Smokin Joe on March 19, 2008, 09:11:08 AM
We (the GAA) have made a real mess of this 

I can't help thinking this myself. Neither can I help thinking that Padraig Duffy and Nickey Brennan have been totally outfoxed on this issue by both the GPA on one side and OfOneBelief.org on the other. It seems pretty obvious that the more Duffy, Brennan and their advisors studied the harebrained grants proposal which was outlined on 8 December last, the more they realised that as a "pay for play" scheme it carried serious legal ramifications for the GAA and also stood little chance of being accepted by the grassroots.

The latest version of the scheme is an improvement on the original in that the pay for play monster seems to have been slayed. That said, I think it is seriously flawed on two counts:

Firstly, it is incredibly complicated and involves a lot of bureaucracy for the sake of a marginal topup to players' expense allowances.

Secondly, there must be serious doubt over the tax treatment of the payments under this scheme, by both the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin and HM Inland Revenue in London.

The Revenue authorities on both sides of the border have traditionally taken a dim view of arrangements where expense allowances have been used as a replacement for taxable remuneration, and in the context of what has gone on in this debate over the past 6 months, it is clear that the new scheme proposes this. Its anyone's guess what will happen if/when a player on either side of the border is served with a tax assessment on their receipts from this scheme.

Fair comment AZ, but I do think its pretty clear that it has to be a proper expense, rather than a round sum one. And there is provision for what happens where a player has not incurred (or claimed) their maximum amount.

Quote from: Hound on March 19, 2008, 08:40:43 AM

2. The GAA will be paying no more than vouched civil service expense rates. They have received confirmation from Revenue that if this is done as intended, there will be no tax liability.

I thought I read the document pretty well - where does it say this Hound?

What i don't understand is this. If these are legitimate expenses why are the GAA not paying for them? And also what expenses can the players claim for? It does not say in the document. Is it going to be car  insurance, internet connection, phone bill - as it was in the first document last April?

At least the discrepancies between the amount players were getting in different counties has been addressed - although the Tommy Murphy Cup finalists will get 25 euro less per week than the round one qualifier loser.

Quote from: Hound on March 19, 2008, 08:40:43 AM

Pure and utter nonsense to say that this brings it within EU legilsation. Everything will be settled under Irish law.


Only if there is still disagreement, one side, if they wish, can go to the EU courts. But thats the same for everything.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Under EU treaties, EU law takes precedence over domestic law. Btw, once you cross the border, Irish law is irrelevant.

Quote from: Hound on March 19, 2008, 08:40:43 AM
They have received confirmation from Revenue that if this is done as intended, there will be no tax liability.

Has this confirmation been made in writing? Has a similar confirmation been received from HM Inland Revenue? Are these confirmations going to be published, if indeed they exist in the first instance? The Revenue authorities either in the UK or here do not usually provide written assurances that particular schemes or situations are in compliance with tax law. (Remember, Bertie Ahern claimed he had received similar confirmation from the Revenue in relation to his digout, but it turned out later that there was no such confirmation.)
and assuming the Revenue confirmations exist, why is this clause in the deal?

Quote
11.4.   Tax liability

The Schemes are intended to reimburse vouched expenses only to the extent that such reimbursement does not give rise to a liability to tax.  However each player shall account to the Revenue Commissioners for any taxation payable in respect of the sums payable to him pursuant to the Schemes and shall make such returns in relation to such payments as are required by law.

Quote from: Hound on March 19, 2008, 08:40:43 AM
3. The GAA have received a written opinion from Senior Counsel that there is no issue with European law. So finally those couple of "experts" who keep going on about EU law meaning the players are now professional, have their answer.

Is this written opinion going to be published as well? Is there a contrary opinion among other senior counsel?

This is a fairly comprehensive and well thought through document it has to be said. It's now entirely understandable why the GAA wanted everyone to wait until this was published before going down the breakaway route rather than making your case within the association structures.

i take az's fears on board re the scenario where the money is pulled by the government but it seems clear to me that what the gpa has signed up to stipulates very carefully that the minister decides the funds available. therefore any trouble in that deprtment can only be lobbied against in his direction. bear in mind that the gaa vote in this country could very easily remove any public representative from office.

My understanding is that the GAA are assured that this structure (expenses top up) absolutely does not introduce an employment scenario with the players and cannot be contested on that basis under law. also, there will be no revenue issues. it may have escaped people's notice that the government are a major player in this scheme and this approach has been submitted to the revenue for approval. how stupid do people think the government are?

So far there have obviously been reservations expressed but it seems to me that this is from people who are fundamentally against the players getting anything, irrespective of how they get it. Our association has obviously gone to great lengths to find a way to facilitate the government's efforts to recognise the contribution that the intercounty players have made nationally and internationally to our indiginous games. fears about breaching rule 11 were and are genuinely held but it's clear to me that the GAA hierarchy and central council are satisfied that this structure facilitates increased expenses, out of the government;s pocket, without breaking that very important ideal.

Cornafean - you are typical of the begrudging attitude that i despair of within our own embership. for weeks you've been shouting foul against pay for play and that this wil bring the association down around us. now you accept this was wrong but you yu've shofted your goalpost and object rather because: there's too much bureacracy, and an imaginary tax implication for th players (which doesn't affect you in the least).

Quote from: Uladh on March 19, 2008, 11:11:41 AM
Cornafean - you are typical of the begrudging attitude that i despair of within our own membership.

Uladh, play the ball not the man. I have no intention of responding in kind.

Can I ask a question?

Does this mean that county boards will not be paying traveling expenses for the entire year or just for the championship? Or does it mean that the county board will continue to pay traveling expenses and that these are merely for 'additional expenses'?

Quote from: believebelive on March 19, 2008, 10:53:59 AM

Quote from: Hound on March 19, 2008, 08:40:43 AM

2. The GAA will be paying no more than vouched civil service expense rates. They have received confirmation from Revenue that if this is done as intended, there will be no tax liability.

I thought I read the document pretty well - where does it say this Hound?

What i don't understand is this. If these are legitimate expenses why are the GAA not paying for them? And also what expenses can the players claim for? It does not say in the document. Is it going to be car  insurance, internet connection, phone bill - as it was in the first document last April?

At least the discrepancies between the amount players were getting in different counties has been addressed - although the Tommy Murphy Cup finalists will get 25 euro less per week than the round one qualifier loser.

Paraic Duffy said it yesterday about Revenue. The GAA currently pay less than civil service rates, so there is room for paying more without incurring the wrath of Revenue. The mileage rate is supposed to cover all costs, i.e. petrol, insurance, motor tax, depreciation - so you can't claim mileage, and then claim insurance.

Expenses for those without a car is a bit more tricky. Duffy said they are currently in discussions with Revenue regarding what expenses can be reimbursed without incurring a tax liability.

cornafean - i am responding directly to the content of your post, which undeniably reflects upon yourself.

you posted

Quote from: cornafean on March 19, 2008, 09:36:29 AM
The latest version of the scheme is an improvement on the original in that the pay for play monster seems to have been slayed. That said, I think it is seriously flawed on two counts:

Firstly, it is incredibly complicated and involves a lot of bureaucracy for the sake of a marginal topup to players' expense allowances.

Secondly, there must be serious doubt over the tax treatment of the payments under this scheme, by both the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin and HM Inland Revenue in London.

what is inappropriate about deducing as i did:

Quote from: Uladh on March 19, 2008, 11:11:41 AM
Cornafean - you are typical of the begrudging attitude that i despair of within our own embership. for weeks you've been shouting foul against pay for play and that this wil bring the association down around us. now you accept this was wrong but you yu've shofted your goalpost and object rather because: there's too much bureacracy, and an imaginary tax implication for th players (which doesn't affect you in the least).

If do not want to be accountable for your posts then don't post.

Quote from: cornafean on March 19, 2008, 11:11:08 AM

Quote from: Hound on March 19, 2008, 08:40:43 AM

Pure and utter nonsense to say that this brings it within EU legilsation. Everything will be settled under Irish law.


Only if there is still disagreement, one side, if they wish, can go to the EU courts. But thats the same for everything.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Under EU treaties, EU law takes precedence over domestic law. Btw, once you cross the border, Irish law is irrelevant.

Has this confirmation been made in writing? Has a similar confirmation been received from HM Inland Revenue? Are these confirmations going to be published, if indeed they exist in the first instance? The Revenue authorities either in the UK or here do not usually provide written assurances that particular schemes or situations are in compliance with tax law. (Remember, Bertie Ahern claimed he had received similar confirmation from the Revenue in relation to his digout, but it turned out later that there was no such confirmation.)
and assuming the Revenue confirmations exist, why is this clause in the deal?

Revenue on both sides of the border regularly give written confirmations as to tax treatment of certain items.

The clause remains, as it would in any commercial case, in case there is a change in tax law or expenses outside the scope of what Revenue agreed are paid.

Quote from: Hound on March 19, 2008, 11:19:16 AM
Paraic Duffy said it yesterday about Revenue. The GAA currently pay less than civil service rates, so there is room for paying more without incurring the wrath of Revenue. The mileage rate is supposed to cover all costs, i.e. petrol, insurance, motor tax, depreciation - so you can't claim mileage, and then claim insurance.

Expenses for those without a car is a bit more tricky. Duffy said they are currently in discussions with Revenue regarding what expenses can be reimbursed without incurring a tax liability.

Current Civil Service rates are as follows:

Up to 6,437km -  52.16 -  78.32 cent per km
Over 6,438km   - 26.97  - 36.65 cent per km
(source Revenue.ie IT51)

They are quite generous for the first 6,437km or 4,000 miles but a lot less so thereafter. Which could mean problems for any players already travelling more than 4,000 miles per year on GAA travel;, and receiving the standard  county board mileage for doing so.

They also DON'T apply:
- where the person has use of a company car or van from their employer
- to travel to and from home
"Where an employee proceeds on a business journey directly from home to a temporary
place of work (rather than commencing that business journey from his/her normal
place of work) or returns home directly, the business kilometres should be calculated by
reference to the lesser of -
- The distance between home and the temporary place of work or
- The distance between the normal place of work and the temporary place of work."

Quote from: Uladh on March 19, 2008, 11:29:03 AM

cornafean - i am responding directly to the content of your post, which undeniably reflects upon yourself.

you posted

Quote from: cornafean on March 19, 2008, 09:36:29 AM
The latest version of the scheme is an improvement on the original in that the pay for play monster seems to have been slayed. That said, I think it is seriously flawed on two counts:

Firstly, it is incredibly complicated and involves a lot of bureaucracy for the sake of a marginal topup to players' expense allowances.

Secondly, there must be serious doubt over the tax treatment of the payments under this scheme, by both the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin and HM Inland Revenue in London.

what is inappropriate about deducing as i did:

Quote from: Uladh on March 19, 2008, 11:11:41 AM
Cornafean - you are typical of the begrudging attitude that i despair of within our own embership. for weeks you've been shouting foul against pay for play and that this wil bring the association down around us. now you accept this was wrong but you yu've shofted your goalpost and object rather because: there's too much bureacracy, and an imaginary tax implication for th players (which doesn't affect you in the least).

If do not want to be accountable for your posts then don't post.

As I said I have no intention of responding to you.

Of course not. You can't stand over the nonsense you post...

Harking back to a point made earlier by cornafean, the entire controversy is linked to an EU directive that was issued about 10 years ago.
I'm a bit hazy on the details now but it involved the Belgian Govt. being sued by a member of a judo team. The athlete in question won his case and that's where it all began. The Irish Govt. is not paying anything out because it wants to but because it legally has to.
(BTW, I'm not giving personal opinions here – the rest of what I have to say is very much on public record.)
It was decided to not only pay grants to athletes and sports people but to all those who could be said to provide a public service in their communities.
How do I know this?
I was very involved in INTO (Irish National Teachers Organisation) matters at the time. Out of the blue, Dept of Ed negotiators told all teachers' union officials that it was proposed that all teachers, who did lunchtime supervision, would be paid in future.
Needless to say, there was no opposition to that!
The monies are being paid out now and this has been the case for the last 7 or 8 years.
The various boards of management decide how the money is to be shared around in every school and send the returns in to the Dept of Ed.
This is the important part.
The grants are added on to each teacher's salary and therefore can be taxed at the going rate. In short, it means there is public accountability for any funds involved.
This applies to professional sports people as well.
This is where the GAA enters the picture.
McCreevy was then Minister for Finance and he refused to include GAA players in the divvy out as their amateur status meant the Dept. of Finance couldn't keep track of monies from the public purse being handed out to the players involved. Soccer and rugby players were included from the start as the Dept. could track those monies through their taxable income but the GAA people were initially debarred.
All hell broke out, with Dessie Farrell and his GPA taking on first McCreevy and then the focus shifted to John O'Donoghue, the Minister for Sport. Under threat of another EU lawsuit, O'Donoghue reluctantly agreed in principle to the GPA's demands and then it was a case of figuring out how Finance could get around its legal obligations to publicly account for money it hands out and the GPA/GAA could arrange this without infringing on the amateur status of the association.
The present controversy is all about this deal.
I don't recall the GAA authorities being actively involved until the deal was done and dusted. I may be wrong but the running was left entirely to Farrell and friends throughout the negotiations with the Govt. side.
All the above is very much on record so don't shoot me as I am only the messenger! ;D
But what I do say is this; don't worry too much about the expenses for mileage or the likes. All this is only a smokescreen to allow the Govt. to fulfill its legal obligations and to allow players get their hands on their money without running foul of GAA rules.

Quote3. The GAA have received a written opinion from Senior Counsel that there is no issue with European law. So finally those couple of "experts" who keep going on about EU law meaning the players are now professional, have their answer.

Hound,
I am glad that the GAA have received a written opinion, however its only an opinion. A few of those "experts" who have the opposite opinion, and would be similarly (if not more) qualified happen to think that EU precedent leans the other way, and think that if pushed that this could go down a long, wind and very expensive road to Bruxelles. All this will take is some player deciding that his freedom of movement of labour is being impinged by the GAA's rule book preventing transfers.

Its certainly not something I'd ever like to see happen. I wasn't content with the whole brown paper bag game that had been happening over the last ten years, and I would have liked to have seen the GAA come in and address the matter rather than Dessie Farrell's organisation, (possibly the biggest amateur in the GAA) step in with an ill thought out grant scheme.

Fair compensation is definitely a matter of opinion, there's very few county players (and club players for that matter) that weren't entitled to fair expenses incurred by playing and training, but what is routinely asked for and received by county players has far surpassed any sense of fairness. The cars, the jobs, the envelopes, the "loans", the deposits and the houses have been whispered about for far too long and its a pity that our GAA didn't have the sense to handle their own business themselves.

For too long the issues of player welfare has gone without due care. The rule book is in major need of a rewrite and the idiots are running the asylum in clubs and counties up and down the country. The Gaelic games we love are beautiful games, what we need is an organisation that lives up to its games and doesn't let down its players and fans as often as the GAA.

Quote from: heganboy on March 22, 2008, 08:28:07 PM

Quote3. , what we need is an organisation that lives up to its games

Which is why you will be standing for various officerships in the Association next Winter?

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 22, 2008, 07:15:19 PM

But what I do say is this; don't worry too much about the expenses for mileage or the likes. All this is only a smokescreen to allow the Govt. to fulfill its legal obligations and to allow players get their hands on their money without running foul of GAA rules.

100%. Find it amazing that some high profile anti-grant personalities have now near-accepted what is on offer now, even though nowt has changed. At the end of the summer, the same players will have received the same amount.

I get the impression ofonebelief realised mid-campaign that they were ultimately going to lose and have changed their goalposts. Very like the DUP/First Friday scenario.

Grants? What grants?

They're called "refunds" now !  ;) :D

I thought they were "expenses".

I have to admit that this coalition of master obfuscators - the GAA administration, the GPA and the Department of Finance - have run ragged rings of incomprehension around my ability to interpret where we stand now. I can even accommodate an interpretation that sees the GAA having completely outwitted the GPA, extracted a commitment (however enforceable) never to look for pay for play, scotched the idea of grants (pay for play) by turning the payments into reimbursement of legitimate expenses (which the players were receiving anyway) and got the government to pay for it!

If this is how it turns out (i.e. players receiving only legitimate expenses, that they were already receiving anyway, but now paid for by the government) it could be a brilliant stroke or it could be a happy outcome arrived at by shambolic blundering, for all I know.

Hardy, surely expenses can't only be regarded as legitimate if the player was aleady receiving them? they're either legitimate or they're not?

By the way, i'm sure the gpa will have signed off on every word of that proposal and even what exactly it means in terms of who gets what.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 22, 2008, 07:15:19 PM
I don't recall the GAA authorities being actively involved until the deal was done and dusted. I may be wrong but the running was left entirely to Farrell and friends throughout the negotiations with the Govt. side.

The GAA have been involved for two years. They signed up and published an agreement with the GPA last April. Infact this agreement was albout expenses too and not grants.

These expenses are on top of the expenses which are already recieved by the players from the county boards. This won't save county boards one cent.

"The GAA have been involved for two years. They signed up and published an agreement with the GPA last April. Infact this agreement was albout expenses too and not grants."

You are right of course. This whole process of negotiation did not happen without the knowledge of the GAA, but the running was done by the GPA.
That's what I meant by "active involvement."
My memory is a little hazy but I think that agreement was signed after the threat of an immediate players' strike was lifted. (95% + in favour, as I recall.)
The fact that it was all about expenses and not grants is not at all surprising. It had to be presented in some form that would not contravene the amateur status of the Association.
However, if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck and lays eggs like a duck, then it is a duck!
Government money is going to be paid out to GAA players who met the essential criteria because they are legally entitled to it and applied for it.
The GAA top brass certainly facilitated the negotiations because they had no real choice in the matter- another law case to Europe would have seen to that.
Where I do have a personal opinion is in the manner in which the negotiations were carried out by a section within our Association and not by the Association itself. I too have concerns that this new initiative will cause problems down the line but it is a legal arrangement and both the Govt. and the GAA will abide by its terms.
Were other sections of the Association adequately briefed by HQ as the deal was being hammered out?
I don't think so; the Mayo County Board grabbed headlines by coming out 100% against the deal. I think that was the case also in Roscommon. Maybe the same happened elsewhere also.
But they were all wasting their breath.
I am in total agreement with O'Neill where Of One Belief is concerned.
They seem to have copped on that taking a law case to the EU, when the same EU issued the very directive that legalised the deal in the first place, might be a costly waste of time.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 24, 2008, 06:29:50 PM
[ithe Mayo County Board grabbed headlines by coming out 100% against the deal. I think that was the case also in Roscommon.

Ros Co Board Meeting a couple of weeks ago voted in favour. Concern was expressed by one delegate that the antis seemed to be all Northern based. ::)

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 24, 2008, 06:29:50 PM

You are right of course. This whole process of negotiation did not happen without the knowledge of the GAA, but the running was done by the GPA.
That's what I meant by "active involvement."
My memory is a little hazy but I think that agreement was signed after the threat of an immediate players' strike was lifted. (95% + in favour, as I recall.)

The GAA were actively involved. Last April they and the GPA ceated a document and presented it to the government - both the GPA and the GAA together negotiated with the government. And that agreement was signed long before strike was ever talked about. The government rejected the first agreement and after months of no further action the GPA threatened strike. Then came the second document which was between the GPA/GAA/Sports Council and Government.

It annoys me journalists spout shite that the GAA were never involved until the latter stages.

And only 73% of inter county players bothered to vote - the other 27 must have not been that annoyed

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 24, 2008, 06:29:50 PM
I am in total agreement with O'Neill where Of One Belief is concerned.
They seem to have copped on that taking a law case to the EU, when the same EU issued the very directive that legalised the deal in the first place, might be a costly waste of time.

This is a bizarre assertion. OfOneBelief.org never threatened to take a law case to the EU. Neither did they or anyone else contend that the original 8/12/07 grants deal was in contravention of EU law.

They did point out that the 8/12/07 deal had legal implications for the GAA arising from previous EU legal precedents.

The abandonment of the 8/12/07 deal in favour of the new expenses-based arrangement seems to justify their contention.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 22, 2008, 07:15:19 PM
The Irish Govt. is not paying anything out because it wants to but because it legally has to.
It was decided to not only pay grants to athletes and sports people but to all those who could be said to provide a public service in their communities.
McCreevy was then Minister for Finance and he refused to include GAA players in the divvy out as their amateur status meant the Dept. of Finance couldn't keep track of monies from the public purse being handed out to the players involved. Soccer and rugby players were included from the start as the Dept. could track those monies through their taxable income but the GAA people were initially debarred.
All hell broke out, with Dessie Farrell and his GPA taking on first McCreevy and then the focus shifted to John O'Donoghue, the Minister for Sport. Under threat of another EU lawsuit, O'Donoghue reluctantly agreed in principle to the GPA's demands and then it was a case of figuring out how Finance could get around its legal obligations to publicly account for money it hands out and the GPA/GAA could arrange this without infringing on the amateur status of the association.
The present controversy is all about this deal.
I don't recall the GAA authorities being actively involved until the deal was done and dusted. I may be wrong but the running was left entirely to Farrell and friends throughout the negotiations with the Govt. side.
All the above is very much on record so don't shoot me as I am only the messenger!
But what I do say is this; don't worry too much about the expenses for mileage or the likes. All this is only a smokescreen to allow the Govt. to fulfill its legal obligations and to allow players get their hands on their money without running foul of GAA rules.

What a load of nonsense!!  ;D
Bizarre that you could get so much mixed up, befuddled and downright wrong in a couple of sentences...

Fair play Hound! You certainly put it plain and direct!
However, you have omitted something. (Actually, a whole load of things.)
Nothing in your summing up indicates where I am speaking "a load of nonsense!"

I stated at the outset that your "load of nonsense" wasn't necessarily my personal opinion but it's there on the public record- something you may check out for yourself.
Actually, I'd go a good deal along the road with OOB- if the reaction had come before the deal was done and dusted.
I have used the websites of the parties involved and my recollections of reports in various newspapers and I didn't rely on my own dodgy memory for that either. I did take the trouble to go check my memory with a handful of concerned colleagues.
I've no problem giving you the URLs of the articles on the various websites I did refer to. As for my buddies, they have decided that it's time I got a life and stopped going on about what is signed, sealed and shortly will be delivered! I really intend to follow their advice.

"The GAA were actively involved. Last April they and the GPA ceated a document and presented it to the government - both the GPA and the GAA together negotiated with the government. And that agreement was signed long before strike was ever talked about. The government rejected the first agreement and after months of no further action the GPA threatened strike. Then came the second document which was between the GPA/GAA/Sports Council and Government."

That's what believebelieve wrote and I find nothing wrong with it. It certainly appears to have been the case.

However, if anyone cares to check the sequence of event before and after what's gone above a different slant on proceedings could be taken.
The GPA holds an EGM, following which a list of demands is issued to the GAA, including a demand for official recognition. On April 24, 2007 GPA issues a press release saying progress has been made and Paraic Duffy has been appointed by the GAA to liaise with them. They give fulsome praise to Mr Duffy and point out that he has had numerous meetings with them. The following day they issue another release saying joint negotiations had begun.
So far, so good and all are singing from the same hymn sheet!
Yet by 9 November they issued yet another release giving the results of the postal ballot they had held, threatening all out strike. The ballot took a long time to organise, compounded by the postal strike in the North, and in the circumstances a postal return of 71.6% could be considered satisfactory.

Now, who was their anger directed against, the Govt. or the GAA?

That release goes on to state that GPA officers are currently engaging in talks with the Govt. and the GAA to resolve the impasse over the grants. (Hmmm...seems to be that they're now talking at the GAA and no longer with them. Where has the united approach gone?)
In any event, unity is rapidly restored in face of the strike threat and by 7 December Nickey Brennan is able to announce a satisfactory conclusion to the (first) agreement. However, he goes on to add that the GAA had no role or commitment in terms of the financing of the Awards or guaranteeing their scale or continuity.
It seems to me that he is saying here that the GAA has no further role to play in the implementation of the scheme, either now or in future. The game is now between the GPA and the Govt.
A quick peek at the OOB website kinda confirms my own suspicions,. They include quotes on the matter from all the Presidential candidates. All express grave reservations. Sean Fogarty is quoted saying, "At the outset we should never have entered discussions on it."
Is it a load of rubbish to say that the opinions of the four Presidential candidates can't be taken as reflecting the thinking of the GAA hierarchy? Especially when the current President washes his hands of future involvement in the deal that's being implemented?
One last (really last) point concerns the OOB. Fair enough they may never have contemplated taking a case to Europe - but plenty of media reports suggest otherwise and the GAA press release of last week did mention a senior legal expert confirming that the deal in no way breached EU directives. I certainly think the reference here was to the deal in general and not to the GAA's own possibility of being legally compromised in any way.
Hound, you're a gas man. ;D

Although I cannot speak for Hound, the following statement raised my own eyebrows:

Quote from: Lar NaparkaThe Irish Govt. is not paying anything out because it wants to but because it legally has to.

It was decided to not only pay grants to athletes and sports people but to all those who could be said to provide a public service in their communities.

Can you illuminate us as to where, when and by whom this momentous decision was made?

From what you say, it must apply to all sports coaches & trainers, jersey-washers, scout leaders, church ushers, Vincent de Paul helpers, meals on wheels volunteers, active age group leaders, credit union committee members, school management boards, the guys who play Santa in the village hall at Christmas, etc etc etc, all of whom can now sue the Government in the European Courts if they don't get paid.

Sorry, I just can't accept that this is true.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 25, 2008, 11:24:36 AM
One last (really last) point concerns the OOB. Fair enough they may never have contemplated taking a case to Europe - but plenty of media reports suggest otherwise

I have followed closely every single piece of coverage I could find about OfOneBelief.org in recent months, and although a serious volume of rubbish has been written about them (including a lot of stuff, emanating mainly from the Indo stable of newspapers, that seems to have been written with the purpose of blackening OfOneBelief.org and its leaders and supporters) I have yet to read anything that suggested that they had ever even considered taking a law case to Europe.

Is anyone really gullible enough that they believe ALL of what they read in the papers on this (or indeed any) subject?

Fair points, cornafean, and I think they deserve a reply.
"Existing EU legal precedents in relation to sports grant payments to athletes suggest otherwise..."
is what you wrote yourself!
I took this to mean that you were conversant with the relevant EU directive. Sorry if I took you up wrong but I assumed you were referring to a monumental court case taken back in 1995. It was taken by a Belgian judo player (if that's the word) against the Belgian Govt. and resulted in the directive I am referring to.
How I came to know about this has been mentioned in detail in my first post. Obviously standards of eligibility apply. In the case of teachers I've indicated that the responsibility of assessing an individual's entitlement rests with the appropriate Boards of Management.
The Dept. of Ed negotiators did mention that a degree of public accountability was necessary, hence the decision add teachers' grants to their pay cheques so that it would be included in their tax liability.
Charlie McCreevy did refer indirectly to this when he stated that GAA players would not be included in the general payout because of their amateur status. In plain speak; giving grants to amateurs does not allow for public accountability.
Can we agree that since then negotiations have been concentrated on finding ways around paying out public money to amateurs and at the same time not contravening rule 11 of the GAA rulebook?
The latest version of the deal appears to have done just that- a classic Irish solution to an Irish problems as the late Charles Haughey might have put it!
With regards to groundsmen and tea ladies and others who provide social benefit to their communities at large with their voluntary efforts, I don't imagine that any application has been made on their behalf so I'll never know if they would be successful in a claim or not.
First, such a claim would need to be lodged on their behalf and then standards of eligibility would have to be met. In the case of GAA players the current benchmark appears to mean being part of a championship intercounty panel for the coming season and the degree of public accountability will be provided by a sports council established outside of GAA control.
Remember that Nickey Brennan took pains last December to distance the GAA from the administration of any such scheme.
I feel that the answer to the classic Irish problem I mentioned above is to pay travelling expenses instead of financial grants.  Has any serious mention been made to the fact that not all players incur travelling costs?
I don't think any will be made. Mind you, I may be proved wrong on this point but I'm not prepared to hold my breath either.
"Is anyone really gullible enough that they believe ALL of what they read in the papers on this (or indeed any) subject?"
Well; speaking for myself, I certainly don't! Indeed I would say that newspapers, the tabs especially, have been even-handed in their approach. They have been scathing in their treatment of the OOB, the GAA and the GPA in equal measure. The GPA in particular got a huge amount of abuse, especially during the staging of the postal ballot.
Quite probably, the OOB reports in the same papers could be along the same lines. One in particular, a Herald follow-up to the GAA press release I have mentioned in my last post, was along the lines of: any OOB intention to pursue their case to Europe being well and truly scuppered by the expert legal finding that the deal did not contravene European law.
My reading of this release would indicate that the legal opinion referred to the deal as a whole and not just to possible implications for the GAA, which you say was a prime concern of the OOB.
I can't recall ever getting that impression from what I may have read about them and I have felt that their opposition was more broad-based than but I have not been following their actions in minute detail

However, my main point all along has been that the GPA has negotiated a deal for themselves for monies they are legally entitled to and that the GAA (Nickey Brennan) has officially distanced itself from the implementation of this scheme.
The deal, while elitist in nature, was perfectly legal and the application was understandable.
We will never know how a claim on behalf of bagmen, tealadies , car drivers et al would have fared out because no application was entered on their behalf.
The members of the OOB, Mayo County Board and fellow travellers seem to be mostly dedicated conscientious persons but their opposition has been voiced far too late to have had any effect on the outcome.
The deal is done and, for better or worse, we will have to live with it.
And I do rest my case here.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 25, 2008, 03:26:53 PM
I took this to mean that you were conversant with the relevant EU directive. Sorry if I took you up wrong but I assumed you were referring to a monumental court case taken back in 1995. It was taken by a Belgian judo player (if that's the word) against the Belgian Govt. and resulted in the directive I am referring to.
How I came to know about this has been mentioned in detail in my first post. Obviously standards of eligibility apply. In the case of teachers I've indicated that the responsibility of assessing an individual's entitlement rests with the appropriate Boards of Management.
The Dept. of Ed negotiators did mention that a degree of public accountability was necessary, hence the decision add teachers' grants to their pay cheques so that it would be included in their tax liability.
Charlie McCreevy did refer indirectly to this when he stated that GAA players would not be included in the general payout because of their amateur status. In plain speak; giving grants to amateurs does not allow for public accountability.
Can we agree that since then negotiations have been concentrated on finding ways around paying out public money to amateurs and at the same time not contravening rule 11 of the GAA rulebook?
The latest version of the deal appears to have done just that- a classic Irish solution to an Irish problems as the late Charles Haughey might have put it!
With regards to groundsmen and tea ladies and others who provide social benefit to their communities at large with their voluntary efforts, I don't imagine that any application has been made on their behalf so I'll never know if they would be successful in a claim or not.

Sorry, to be honest, I don't have a monkeys what you are talking about. The Belgian Judo player's case had nothing to do with the question of the State being forced to pay grants to athletes and meals on wheels ladies. Rather, it had to do with the question of whether the recipient of a grant could claim that her sporting activities constituted an economic activity and whether she could enjoy certain rights and entitlements on that basis.

The case was neatly summarised on the ofonebelief.org website

http://www.ofonebelief.org/2008/01/30/dra-delight/
*** Quote

But it would equally hold no water at all as far as some very "un-plain" legal people at the heart of the EU are concerned. Following a case taken to the European Court of Justice by Christelle Deliege, the Court ruled in December 2005 that since Mme Deliege received money, including some from her own judo federation as grants to improve her sporting performance (now where have we heard that before?) as a result of taking part in judo, her sporting activity actually constituted an economic activity ... and therefore enjoys the full protection of Community law.

On that basis, if we give money to our players then all our tried-and-tested GAA rules and understandings about registrations; transfers; and even the management of our games immediately go out the window to be replaced by EU work/employment-related rules and regulations about restraint of trade; image rights; access to GAA income; and so on.

end quote ***



and in the Sunday Tribune, by Kieran Shannon
http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/Sport/GAA&id=83956&SUBCAT=Tribune/Sport


quote ***

And, of course, there's the motion from Central Council itself last week, calling that Congress is "satisfied" that the scheme is in accordance with Rule 11.

The Of One Belief group contend that motion is out of order for not including any amendment of Rule 11 when the scheme is in breach of Rule 11, which states: "The Association is an Amateur Association. A player, team, official or member shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic Games."

As far as Conway is concerned, how can the grants scheme not constitute either "payment in cash or in kind"? "Once we start paying our players in a structured way it's the road to perdition, " says Conway. Because, he says, there is a precedent in European law which could have huge ramifications. Just like Jean-Marc Bosman went from being a nobody to a household name overnight in the world of soccer, so too could another Belgian, one Christelle Deliege, in the world of Gaelic Games.

In 1997, Deliege, a former European judo champion, took a case against her governing body when she was overlooked for the Barcelona and Atlanta Olympic Games. Though judo defined itself as an amateur sport, Deliege contended that by virtue of the government grants and sponsorship money she received from participating in the sport, non-inclusion constituted a breach of her "economic activity" as protected in European law.

Deliege ultimately did not get her way, with the European Court of Justice deeming that since governing bodies could hardly select everyone for a national team, the Belgian federation were within their rights to overlook her, but in its ruling the court accepted certain principles. Deliege's participation in the sport, by virtue of receiving grants and sponsorship, constituted economic activity.


end quote***




For a similar analysis, from a non-GAA perspective, read this

http://www.europeanvoice.com/archive/article.asp?id=4329&print=1

quote***

Big money puts sports ball into European Court
By Rory Watson

WITH the historic Bosman verdict already under its belt, the European Court of Justice is being asked to pass judgement on two more cases with potentially wide-ranging consequences for the sporting world.

The Luxembourg-based judges are examining whether EU rules on the free movement of people and the right to provide services apply to the highly competitive worlds of international judo and professional basketball.

The cases reflect a general rise in litigation as sportsmen and women explore how far Union rules are relevant to their fields, encouraged in part by the huge sums of money at stake.

In the first case, leading Belgian judoist Christelle Deliege is using the EU's treaties to challenge her country's procedure for national team selection.

The French-speaking judo expert, who has been regularly overlooked by the Belgium's predominantly Dutch-speaking federation, is claiming that the procedures violate Union rules on the right to provide services as set out in Article 59 of the Treaty of Rome.

If successful, her case could have an impact on other individual sportsmen and women who live off their skills without any contract between themselves and an employer.

The second case more closely follows the route first trod by Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman when he used EU provisions on the free movement of people successfully to overturn rules governing the way the soccer transfer market worked.

Finnish basketball player Jyri Lehtonen and his club Castor Braine are challenging the practice of transfer deadlines, under which players may not take part in matches if they have changed clubs after a certain date in the season.

Lehtonen's lawyers, who previously acted for Bosman and are also representing Deliege in her case, believe the restrictions violate EU competition and free movement rules.

In an unusual display of unity, the Belgian Basketball Federation is also keen for the ECJ to provide a ruling to clarify what is becoming an increasingly confusing picture.

Meanwhile, the idea of creating a sports dispute resolution panel to arbitrate in costly disagreements between sportsmen and women, their clubs and national federations is gaining support among MEPs.

© Copyright 1997 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved

end quote***


...and again here


http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/130918/judo-league-wins-euro-case

quote***

JUDO LEAGUE WINS EURO CASE

Thu, 27/09/2001 - 23:00
Spain | United States | Football Soccer | Law | Martial Arts

A European Court of Justice adviser has said the Belgian Judo League had the right to limit which of its members could participate in European and international competitions.

Advocate General Georges Cosmas at Europe's highest court rejected a complaint by Belgian judoka Christelle Deliege that she had been unfairly kept off the Belgian team to the Olympics in Barcelona in 1992 and Atlanta in 1996.

If the court follows the legal opinion, the chances for amateur sportsmen and women to have the right to compete without restraints imposed by national federations could be subject to the whim of local sports leagues.

The European Court of Justice should make its final ruling in this case before the end of this year.

Deliege, rated excellent in the under 52 kg judo category since 1987, claimed her participation in sports amounted to an economic activity and therefore she should have the right to compete without restraints imposed by the Belgian judo federation.

The court's advocate general has accepted that amateur sport might be an economic activity, but has said that sports groups may impose limits which are "purely related to sport."

Deliege's case, sometimes likened to that of footballer Eric Bosman who won the right at the EU court to move from one football team to another, will once again require the court to consider if a league's restraint on a player amounts to a breach of an EU citizen's basic right to provide services.

Deliege raised the issue of unfair competition but the advocate general, like the court in Bosman, has not said whether he believes the Belgian Judo League is abusing a dominant position over its sportsmen and women.

Reuters
end quote***

"Sorry, to be honest, I don't have a monkeys what you are talking about. The Belgian Judo player's case had nothing to do with the question of the State being forced to pay grants to athletes and meals on wheels ladies."

To be perfectly serious I would be inclined to agree with that last sentence now that you have kindly explained the matter in detail for us all to see. I am not being sarcastic in any way either when I suggest that you have obviously given the matter more thought and time than I have done, or intend to do.
At first or even seconds reading I don't get any obvious connection either but there has to be implications arising from that finding..
You see, the Dept of Ed did draw such implications from what is I presume is the case we are both referring to.
I have mentioned that in the course of a pay negotiation meeting the Official side came up with a totally unexpected offer and cited "that case in Belgium" as the reason for so doing.
The person who made the offer was real enough and was part of a negotiating team that were all physically present at the time and none demurred.
If he was talking through his arse then the rest either were too polite to object or were under the same delusion. I don't know or care what the reason was; the bottom line is that the grants were paid out and continue to be paid out.
In the considerable discussions that subsequently took place in setting up and overseeing the scheme the matters of public accountability and eligibility standards were discussed in full and both criteria certainly apply.
The development of the scheme to include the classes of people who would be eligible and the standards expected were mentioned in general conversation and in all cases have come to pass.

what is "ofonebelief"'s one belief?

I think the one belief is that it's an amateur sport whose players shouldn't get paid ( although it's ok to pay others involved in the sport ) !

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 25, 2008, 03:26:53 PM
I took this to mean that you were conversant with the relevant EU directive. Sorry if I took you up wrong but I assumed you were referring to a monumental court case taken back in 1995. It was taken by a Belgian judo player (if that's the word) against the Belgian Govt. and resulted in the directive I am referring to.
How I came to know about this has been mentioned in detail in my first post. Obviously standards of eligibility apply. In the case of teachers I've indicated that the responsibility of assessing an individual's entitlement rests with the appropriate Boards of Management.
The Dept. of Ed negotiators did mention that a degree of public accountability was necessary, hence the decision add teachers' grants to their pay cheques so that it would be included in their tax liability.
Charlie McCreevy did refer indirectly to this when he stated that GAA players would not be included in the general payout because of their amateur status. In plain speak; giving grants to amateurs does not allow for public accountability.

Jeez Louise. Talk about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing!!

You have clearly no idea what McCreevy's tax relief was. The reason it could not extend to GAA players was nothing to do with public accountability, and all to do with the fact they received no taxable pay from playing sport - therefore tax relief would be worthless because they don't pay tax on the sporting earnings!! Zero to do with accountability.

And the teachers have nothing to do with Beligan Judo players!! The teachers argued that they weren't being paid for yard duty, because it was their break time too. So a deal was done. Nothing, zero, nada to do with Judo. And your earlier comment that it was an unprovoked out of the blue offer from government is just plain wrong.

"Jeez Louise. Talk about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing!!"
Hound, thanks once again for taking the trouble to reply and I do agree with your opening statement, but probably for quite different reasons. ;D

"And the teachers have nothing to do with Beligan Judo players!! The teachers argued that they weren't being paid for yard duty, because it was their break time too. So a deal was done. Nothing, zero, nada to do with Judo. And your earlier comment that it was an unprovoked out of the blue offer from government is just plain wrong."

I never said they had! I went to great pains to point out that the Dept. officials did although.
None of the teacher reps at the fateful meeting in Marlborough Street expected the offer to be made, so it can be said to have come "out of the blue." For some considerable time prior to this offer, teachers throughout the land had been campaigning vigorously for payment for schoolyard supervision.
That demand would have been submitted during the course of that meeting but the offer, when it was made, was totally unexpected. A tough fight had been expected on that one but an offer to pay out certainly was not.
BTW, have you ever considered the possibility that I might have been a lot closer to the scene that you were?
In any event, I have taken pains to point out that what I have said is a matter of public record.  The INTO website maintains a searchable archive of articles from past editions. I imagine the other teachers' unions do the same. Heck! I'll even give you the URLs to go check out if you want!
I know that the press office down Marlborough Street way can be very helpful and the people concerned generally go out of their way to help callers gain access to information they require.
The offer is there to help out if you, or anyone else, want to go down that route.
You could be right also that the offer had nothing to do with Judo-but I heard a Dept negotiator say it had – now who do I believe – him or you?
Possibly your definitions of "out of the blue" and "public accountability" differ from mine.
Take this:
"The reason it could not extend to GAA players was nothing to do with public accountability, and all to do with the fact they received no taxable pay from playing sport - therefore tax relief would be worthless because they don't pay tax on the sporting earnings!! Zero to do with accountability."
I think I have laboured my way through the very same point already, once or twice!
My one difference with you on this one is that Finance gurus think it has everything to do with public accountability. In plain English, any Govt. agency would not contemplate handing out money in the form of gifts unless it could stand over the reasons for giving such gifts and publicly account for same.
That's what I was told anyway and that's the definition I got of Public Accountability when I bothered to go ask!
Out of deference to other board members I'm going to definitely sign off on this one-unless someone asks for online links to back up what I have said at any point.
I would suggest that cornafean, in his recent epic reply to me might have inserted the little word "seems" into the following sentence:
"The Belgian Judo player's case had nothing to do with the question of the State being forced to pay grants to athletes and meals on wheels ladies."
And I then would have agreed with him!  I never claimed it was based on anything-but I said a Dept. negotiator did.
That might have saved him the trouble of landing such a slew of quotations and training slashes across the board.  It might have saved me and I imagine many others from having to put the mouse wheel into overdrive to get to the end of the bloody thing. Again, nothing personal here, but if I ever had had reason to quote extraneous sources at such length I would have used hyperlinks instead  so that  innocent fellow board members would have the option of reading them or not.

Before I finally sign off I'd like, just to point out one last time, that the reason for my joining in still remains the same: for better or worse, The Deal is now with us and we got to accept this fact and move on.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 26, 2008, 11:39:21 AM

Again, nothing personal here, but if I ever had had reason to quote extraneous sources at such length I would have used hyperlinks instead  so that innocent fellow board members would have the option of reading them or not.

I did provide hyperlinks to the articles I quoted. Hyperlinks are a nice facility but are of limited use when one wants to refer to, or emphasise, a particular paragraph in a long article. For example, the Kieran Shannon article I quoted and linked runs to over 1300 words - longer than the 1240-odd words (including quotes) in my entire post.

About 5 sentences of the Shannon article were directly relevant to the Delliege case. There would be little point in me asking you and other contributors to trawl through the entire article just to find those 5 sentences. 

And anyway nobody is forced to read the entire quotes, just as nobody is forced to read all of your own lengthy posts. People can read what they choose, and skip the rest.

Cornafean, I agree with the sentiments of your last post- with the last sentence in particular and I feel compelled to come back to admit this.
I hope there was nothing you'd consider derogatory or personal in anything I may have written here.
I have great respect for your ability to put your points across and I also appreciate the time and trouble it can take to check reference resources. If I ever get tangled up in a war of words again, I'd prefer to have you on my side any time!
It is unfortunate that we seemed to each have been focusing on two slightly different aspects of the matter in hand.

Latest web update from Mark Conway & friends on ofonebelief.org ....




http://www.ofonebelief.org/2008/03/27/who-was-right-and-who-was-wrong/


Who Was Right ... And Who Was Wrong?

Now everybody knows why those promoting player grants/awards/whatever ran scared of the DRA - they knew that what they had attempted to foist on the GAA back on 8 December hadn't a legal, let alone an ethical leg to stand on. The panicky mantra this time around about compliance with EU law shows just how close to disaster the GAA had been brought last November/December. Serious questions have to be asked about the levels of competence shown right the way through here. And those questions remain about the latest offering to an increasingly sceptical GAA membership.If there was any doubt that "Of One Belief" and those of like mind got it exactly right late last year and Central Council got it frighteningly wrong, then the frankly embarrassing expenses denouement of 17/18 March spells it out loud and clear. Last December we were told we were scare-mongering ... that we were dinosaurs/backwoodsmen/The Taliban ... that all the bases had been covered ... that the amateur status was "copper-fastened" by the deal. Now the "copper-fastening" scheme is in the bin (a bin we're confident is firmly copper-fastened!!!) and we're presented with a whole new scheme and a whole new language. The last batch of very nervous assurances turned out to be as worthless as the grants they applied to.

In one of Irish sport's great ongoing turnarounds, the cash-for-elite-GAA-players terminology has been changed yet again. We've so far waded our way from "grants" through "awards" to "eligible expenses"   (can the term "dig-out" now be all that far away?) But the outcome remains tellingly the same: inter-County GAA players will be given sizeable amounts of cash simply because they're inter-County GAA players. That's the one sad, unchanging fact in all of this mess.

As the morass deepens we've been told by our President ("Off The Ball", Newstalk, 18 March) that inter-County players, having had their GAA mileage rates already paid by their County Boards (at 50 cents a mile), can apply to have their rates topped up to Civil Service levels (at €1.27 a mile). It's simply unbelievable.

In one of the GAA's most ironic twists ever, we now have the GPA -which originally rightly railed at the fact that some elite GAA officials got better mileage rates than elite GAA players - endorsing exactly the same sort of grubby discrimination they said they came forward to oppose. Principle ... where are you! But then maybe part of the GPA's well-versed "plight-of-the-inter-County-player" is being cursed with cars that are, just as a fact of life, much more expensive to run than those driven by anybody else involved in the GAA. Maybe, to steal a phrase from another person; another time; and another place, the rest of us want to try it sometime!
You've Shown Us the Money ... Now Show Us the Shopping List!

The new "Eligible Expenses" scheme is very long on the "How" (ie we get chapter and verse on the mechanics of the thing) but totally and worryingly short on the "What" (ie just what is going to be included in these mysterious "Eligible Expenses"). In plain GAA language it's not good enough. GAA people at Congress in a fortnight's time are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We were last asked to do this on 8 December last year: we all now know the narrow escape the GAA had then. There's an old Irish saying that goes: "Fool me once, shame on you ... Fool me twice, shame on me!" It seems fairly relevant here!

Let's look at the new "scheme". At first glance alone here are some of the problems with it:

    * Just what are "Eligible Expenses"? It's time to show us the beef! Give us a list of what's in and make it clear what's out. If that fairly simple exercise can't be done ... well, why can't it be done?
    * On whose authority is the GPA to be unilaterally introduced to important decision-making roles within the GAA?
    * Why is the GPA the only party to all this not defined in the document?
    * What are the legal liabilities for the GAA in involving a non-constituted body like the GPA in its corporate governance?
    * Will team mentors/back-room people be eligible for these "enhanced expenses"? If not, why not?
    * Ditto re people involved in inter-County Under 21 and Minor teams
    * Ditto re referees, in many ways among the most important GAA people of all
    * And what about the driver who brings County Players to training etc in his/her car: does the inter-County player then revert back to being a 50-cents-a-mile as opposed to a €1.27-a-mile burden?
    * Who's going to handle the administrative nightmare this will introduce at County level?
    * What kind of expenses regime is it that's performance-based? Expenses are expenses are expenses: if they're tied in to some sort of performance-related arrangement they're not bona fide expenses. Are we seeing a major GAA Trojan Horse here?
    * Any encouragement of pooled player travel (and another stated government policy) now goes out the window
    * Most seriously of all, after all the honeyed words about player burnout we're now about to lever even more training/performance demands onto inter-County players: that's simply not what we should be doing

There is a simple answer to all this. If the government has €3.5m to spare for the GAA, then split it between the various County Boards to help them fund their increasingly complex and expensive GAA work.

Equally, another thought. What about €25,000 for every County Board and €1,000 for every GAA Club in Ireland ... but tied to them doing programmed work to address one of our huge community problems, binge drinking? Even give it on condition that they provide match funding/resources. Or do we just talk about those things ... in the firm understanding that we won't ever do anything about them?
DRA Business

Our first case at the DRA effectively ended in a no-score draw. But watch this space! The holes in the 17 March agreement (though maybe it too will turn out not to have been an agreement at all either) are already emerging. And options are being considered.

Whatever happens next we'd want to put on record that we have been treated with total decency and respect by the DRA. They're honourable people doing an honourable job for the GAA. Sin é.
"Of One Belief": Not a Group!

Several people have taken to calling us a group and querying our right to make our case and use options like the DRA. We're not a formal group and always made that very, very clear. We're much more than that. We're GAA members and volunteers who have taken exception to how GAA volunteers and members have been persistently disenfranchised in all this. We believe in the GAA and have been committed to it. We like to think we've helped make it what it is. But we don't want to see it destroyed for the next generations on the basis of the greed and short-sightedness of some members of this generation. But, having said that, we're not about squabbling and quarrelling with fellow-gaels. The GAA deserves much better than that. But it also deserves better than some current/recent proposals!

"Of One Belief" is a branding or banner that we use. It's nothing more and nothing less. And as of today there's 1,031 of you signed up to it. Not a bad state of affairs!
To Close: The Best Line Yet!

From one of our classy and very honourable (but un-named) national GAA journalists:

"Of One Belief has certainly achieved a re-routing of the parade!"

Brilliant!