Messages

I agree that the decision to "defer" the game as opposed to "postponing" it is wrong. Sadly it's typical of the extraordinary spinning being done on lots of issues by Croke Park these days.

I actually think the rule to penalise a player for not turning out for his county team is wrong and should be got rid of. If the players are amateurs they should be free to walk away at any time if they want, without penalty. Playing Gaelic games is supposed to be about choice.

However, there is one big difference between a player walking away in ordinary circumstances and what is going on in Cork. The Cork players have adopted the disgraceful stance of saying they're not playing but all the time they're actively pulling every trick they can to stop new players coming in and playing in their place. They have said so often that no player would want to play for Cork in those circumstances that it has become a mantra. That is impossible to accept. In any other county new players would come forward, regardless of strike. The Cork players have been lobbying and pressurising those in their clubs to make sure no-one breaks their lines, or if they do they will be vilified like blacklegs, just like Frank Murphy or any of the county board, or in fact anyone who disagrees with the GPA's agenda. Hence the word was put out that the Newtownshandrum team was behind the strike.

Remember how most of the Derry county footballers wouldn't play under Mickey Moran a few years ago? They made their point, but they didn't come out slandering anyone who disagreed with them or played in their place.

But the Cork players/GPA leaders want to have their cake, eat it, get paid an appearance fee for turning up to eat it, charge for endorsing it, claim for infringement of image rights from anyone who happened to picture them eating it, get paid a grant to train to burn off the fat gained by eating it, and fire the chef who made the cake. Washed down by Club Energise (c).

I'm just after reading yesterday's Irish News, and I thought the following revelation about a Belgian judoka (judo competitor) was hugely significant -

"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...as a result of taking part in judo, her sporting activity actually constitutes an economic activity and therefore enjoys the full protection of Community law."

Surely this shatters any notion that the proposed grants scheme for GAA inter-county players is not pay-for-play.

I shudder to think of the consequences - Bosman ruling, etc etc - if this is allowed to go ahead.

Look at the Hogan Stand version of last night's meeting. I've rarely seen such a biased version of an event in my life. See how they left out all of Harrington's strong quotes about the amateur status in the Examiner and Irish Times and made the meeting look like a teddy bear's picnic.

Exactly what is their agenda?


Dublin vote undecided
16 January 2008

Dublin County Board's stance on the controversial issue of Government grants to intercounty players won't be known until the matter is debated at Central Council despite the fact that a majority of club delegates have given the scheme the thumbs down.

The issue of grant payments was discussed at last Monday night's Dublin County Board meeting and it is understood that most of the views expressed were against the payment of grants.

However, at the end of the hour and a half debate, in which some 35 delegates had their say on the matter, no vote was taken and no direction given to the executive.

"We had no proposal from the floor - we were asked for no vote," Dublin chairman Gerry Harrington confirmed.

"So it was decided to leave the topic in the hands of our Central Council delegate. He will take into consideration all of the views that were expressed at the meeting."

  Hear hear

 16 January 2008

Dublin latest to oppose payments of grants, says Harrington

By Brendan Larkin
DUBLIN has joined the growing list of counties opposed to grants being paid to inter-county players according to chairman Jerry Harrington.


The issue was discussed in detail at Monday night's Board meeting with delegates voicing their concern the proposed deal.

Said Harrington: "Since the convention many of our clubs had discussed the matter at their own meetings and that helped to swell Monday's county board meeting when the issue was again raised.




"I'm aware of at least one club in Dublin who conducted a debate on the matter and the majority of their membership, which consisted mostly of young people, voted against the grants.

"It's refreshing to learn that the youth membership of the GAA clubs in Dublin are opposed to this grants scheme, and all along I thought it was people of my vintage who were against it."

He added: "At least 35 delegates spoke at Monday night's meeting and expressed concern for the amateur status of the GAA.

"The question was asked if the grants issue was in contravention of Rule 11 of the official guide.

"The matter was discussed at length. At the end of the discussion there was no proposal from the floor for a motion to be submitted to Congress, and it was agreed that it be left to the discretion of our Central Council delegate, county secretary John Costello to raise the issue at the next Council meeting.

"He was left in no doubt how the clubs of Dublin feel on this particular issue. It would be fair to say that our clubs want the amateur status of the GAA protected and are opposed to the grants scheme.''

He added: "Another issue that came from Monday's county board meeting was that clubs and delegates were concerned that they had not been part of the discussion up to now.

"Most of the discussion was done at a higher level and did not come down to county boards or clubs similar to what happened when the issue of the opening of Croke Park to rugby and soccer was first discussed.

"We are forever being told that the club is the bedrock of the GAA, and delegates at our meeting let it be known in no uncertain manner that they had no hand, act or part in the decision making.

"As far as they were concerned it was a done deal and they had not been consulted. Many delegates thanked the county board for affording them the opportunity to discuss the matter. The Dublin County Board now knows where their clubs and delegates stand on the matter. I'm on record as saying our clubs run the GAA in Dublin, not the officers. We are only mere organisers."

Just when you thought people had gone quiet on this issue...

A couple of points spring to mind in relation to O'Neill's sustained offensive -

Are McGuigan's well documented struggles with certain problems while in America, which coincided with his payment for play, not one of the strongest arguments that can be made against such payment?

Also, I think the main controversy in the HE sector has been eligibility, not "pay-for-play". I.E. Are the players all full-time students, rather than, are they receiving scholarships? The provision of illicit scholarships may have affected eligibility issues, but that does not mean that the HE Council was losing that battle.

The biggest problem with O'Neill's argument is the accusation of "hypocrisy" against those who are speaking up on this issue, for not speaking up earlier. Judging from most of what has been said, eg about the payment of managers, it would probably be fair to say that most objectors previously were uncomfortable with illicit payments. But the fact is that ordinary members know their place. It is supposed to be up to the top officials to deal with those issues.

Consider this example. Cocaine is illegal. Cocaine is increasingly prevalent. Lots of people are taking it or selling it. Lots more ordinary people do not like this fact and would want the government, police, whoever, to eradicate the problem. What do these ordinary people do? Do they go around demanding to be quoted in the media, saying "cocaine is bad. Do something about this problem."? Generally no, because it is widely understood that cocaine is illegal/dangerous/wrong and that for these reasons the government and police know their duty and they should be left to carry out their responsibilities.

So consider then the previous illicit payments. Why would the likes of Conway, McAnallan etc go round trying to kick up a stink about illegal payments when they were effectively nobodies in the greater administrative scheme of things? President, Central Council, provincial councils, county boards, Congress - these are the bodies that have real power, and for anyone else to be going on a solo run on such an issue would have looked like an attention seeker. And why bother when it was widely understood that top officials were against these payments anyway?

O'Neill, your tenacity in the argument is admirable, but comes across increasingly as belligerence in the face of the obvious problems that this grant deal is creating for members all over the country.

The more people are thinking it through, the more they are against it.

This Dessie Farrell who gave his life to the GAA for no reward...

Is he the same Dessie Farrell who was on a 3-man interview panel for the GPA Chief Executive job, along with Donal O'Neill and Frank McNamee, about 5 or 6 years ago, and gave the job to a certain Dessie Farrell?

Yes, indeed - various people were interviewed, before Dessie decided that Dessie was the best man for the job.

What a selfless act that was.

The Mayo panel immediately issued a press release congratulating him on his generosity.

Irish Examiner  13 December 2007

GAA scores a disastrous own goal by signing up to pay-for-play deal

By Diarmaid Ferriter
I HAD a dream the other night that quickly turned into a nightmare. A prominent Dublin barrister, Michael McDowell, formerly Minister for Justice, had somehow been returned to the Dáil and was appointed Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism.


Alongside Ryanair's chief executive Michael O'Leary, McDowell was presiding over a presentation at Ryan Park, formerly known as Croke Park. The occasion marked the end of the GAA's inter-county hurling championship and McDowell, who had controversially asserted at the start of the summer that some measure of inequality was necessary in the GAA to keep it competitive and profitable, was there to present large cheques to members of the winning Cork team, to the tune of €100,000 each.




The players on the Limerick team who had provided the opposition were somewhat downcast that their quest for another all-Ireland medal had been dashed, but there was considerable consolation in that they were each receiving a runners-up cheque for €50,000 each.

Outside Ryan Stadium, which had been sold by the GAA the previous summer to Michael O'Leary and promptly named after the late Tony Ryan, the founder of Ryanair, disgruntled grassroots members of the GAA were protesting loudly and held aloft banners and placards that denounced the privatisation of the national sporting heritage. A few of them had earlier thrown eggs at the Mercedes of Dessie Farrell who, as chief executive of the Gaelic Player's Association (GPA), led the negotiations that led to pay-for-play in the GAA.

I woke up as the din got louder and cursed my choice of bedtime reading the previous night — the three-page text of the agreement reached between the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Irish Sports Council, GAA and the GPA.

Apparently, it is an agreement to recognise "the contribution of senior inter- county players and additional costs associated with enhancing team performance". The opening sentence proclaims: "Our senior inter-county players provide the window through which our National Games are viewed nationally and internationally." It recognises that successful teams prepare and train to the highest international standards for team sports and that "the current scheme of tax relief for professional sports people cannot be applied to Gaelic players because of their amateur status".

As a result, the minister intends to "introduce schemes 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".

It's a document that is full of euhemisms to avoid the use of the word "payment" but instead refers to "schemes", and it is a blatant attempt to copperfasten a two-tiered GAA.

The level of award available to teams "will be calculated on a sliding scale increasing with continuing involvement in the championships", ensuring the elite teams will be singled out for special treatment. The amount to be provided in 2008 to fund these "schemes" is €3.5 million, which might not seem like much, but this worrying development is not about the sums of money involved, but the beginning of the abandonment by the GAA of its amateur status. No matter how it is dressed up by the GAA or the Government, what it amounts to is the inauguration of the pay-for-play era.

The language of the agreement is completely at odds with the ethos of an amateur organisation and contains phrases such as "performance-based criteria". The section on "Player Responsibilities" reads like a job specification. Players need to "attend at least 80% of all training sessions", keep updated training logs and diaries and "demonstrate improvement through regular fitness testing".

The notions of choice and voluntarism, on which the GAA was built, do not get a look in and the contention that "all parties recognise the amateur status of the GAA and nothing in this agreement will undermine that amateur status" is disingenuous.

The GPA has also been Jesuitical in its use of language by maintaining that the agreement will actually ensure the survival of the amateur ethos of the GAA, while Dessie Farrell dismissed opponents within the GAA as a "disaffected rump".

That was an extraordinarily arrogant assertion. In truth, neither the GPA nor the GAA leadership knows what the GAA grassroots think of this new deal because they have deliberately refused to consult the rank-and-file members, a situation in stark contrast to the debate about the deletion of the GAA's Rule 42 to allow Croke Park to be used for the playing of non-GAA sports. Prior to that development, ordinary club members were given the opportunity to have their say, and there was a feeling that the groundbreaking decision they made was a democratic one.

The GPA, to its credit, has done a lot of work to ensure that GAA players are better treated, particularly in highlighting a harshness that was often evident in the way injured players were treated, and because of its efforts it is fair to assert that inter-county players are now treated a lot better than they used to be. But the GPA now has also ensured that respect for players will be measured through the payment of money and it has achieved this by pointing a gun to the head of the GAA top brass with its threatened strike action.

THE GAA responded by caving in to that threat and is now complicit in undermining the very things that have made it so special and unique in the modern sporting world and the sense that the organisation is an entity which we feel we hold in common ownership.

There will be further preoccupation on the part of the GPA with broadcasting rights and image rights. In reality, it is not concerned with the wider welfare of the organisation, but with the elite inter-county players who represent less than 1% of the GAA's playing population.

The exceptional skill, commitment and passion of those elite players are not doubted. But the most important point is that what they do is voluntary and is a choice they make.

Last weekend, former players defended the new arrangement. Colm O'Rourke, for example, suggested that "if the amateur ethos of the GAA is dead, then it is not the players who did the damage — in fact, they are very late coming to the table", a reference to the widespread practice of payments to the managers of GAA teams.

In a similar vein, Colm Kearney, the former Down player, insisted that "the GAA could do well to acknowledge that the brown envelope syndrome already exists. It has been a feature of GAA life for decades in terms of payment, perhaps through intermediaries, of certain coaches and managers and other support staff".

Both Kearney and O'Rourke are, of course, correct in their assertions. But wouldn't it be better to launch a campaign against those practices rather than formalising an elite payment system in an organisation that supposedly cherishes the notion that everybody in it is equal?