Messages

I know the arguments about club managers getting paid but I still think that once this point has been conceded as ok then it will inevitably lead to players getting paid.

From my own personal expereince I have had four club managers. Two were paid and two were not. The two who were not were club men who knew what they were doing and got the full respect and commitment from the players. We had successful years. Of the two who were paid one was from outside the club did not know his arse from his elbow and it ended up knowbody wanted to play for him knowing he was picking up 150 euro per week. The other was a club man but the players still resented that he got paid to manage his own club and certainly thought the extra effort he was putting in - compared to when he as a player - was not worth 150 euro a week.
I was also a member of a team where a player was paid a brown envelope to not play soccer. It was our worst year ever. No matter how well he played the rest of us were just not as committed.

I firmly believe we are different because we do not pay players and when this changes we will lose averything we hold dear.

The problem with this is that there are far too many 'a la carte GAA' people about. I find it absolutley absurd that people can argue that a manager deserves 'paid' because of the time and effort that he puts in. Even if he does give more time and effort to the job than the player (doubtful in my opinion but I am prepared to concede the point for the sake of the argument) it would be very easy for the player to say that his lifestyle sacrifices are much more than the manager.
But anyway all this is somantics. The bottom line is this. managers, coaches and players should not be paid or receieve grant aid for playing the game.

Has anyone read what the players will be entitled to claim for if this thing goes through - internet usage, tax, insurance - why should players get this incentive and ordinary members not.

The GAA has royally messed this up. They have conceded the principal and have looked the other way to payment of manager. The Association will be unrecognisable in 20 years.

I'd say they will be just happy enough to win the championship after 10 years.

And there lies the problem.

i know all charges were cleared but surely they should have left it until the end of the footballing calender?!?

It is statements like this that make me believe in dictatorships - sweet suffering jesus how can some people be so wrong!

So Sammy - do you have a problem with GAA being coached in state schools (i think you dont have a problem with this)  or state schools entering GAA competitions run by cumman na mBunscol?
Just a simple yes or no?

I take it you did not see my above post Sammy???

No, not sure what happened my answer to snatter was posted ages ago and didn't appear until after yours. 

Care to comment on it now??

I take it you did not see my above post Sammy???

OK Sammy. One more go.

In order for coach children to be coached GAA in a school no teacher, or no pupil need to become a member of the GAA or any other organisation.

Now if the school wants to compete in primary schools competitions then they will affiliate to the following organisation; Cumann na mBunscol and for your benefit here are their aims and objectives;

(C) The aims and objectives of "Cumann na mBunscol" shall be:           

- To promote and foster our national games., Boys' Football, Girls' Football; Hurling; Camogie; Handball and Rounders in all the Primary Schools of Ireland and other affiliated areas.
- To promote and foster a positive attitude towards our national games among teachers, pupils, parents and all involved in the promotion of Gaelic Games in the primary education system
- To endeavour to have our national games accepted as part of the curriculum in primary schools by the Department of Education &Science.
- To promote Gaelic Games in an atmosphere of fun and enjoyment.


Now sammy do you find anything wrong with those aims and objectives?

And even if you do will you finally admit that no child nor teacher has to become a member or no school needs to be affiliated to any organisaton in order for GAA to be coached in their schools - note i specifically said coaching not the playing of games against other schools in official competitions.

[If your kid plays GAA in school, he doesnt need to sign for a GAA club or the GAA organisation as its a schools competition.]

Sammy its very simple, if your kid plays soccer in school, he doesnt need to sign for a soccer club or any soccer organisation as its a schools competition.
If your kid plays GAA in school, he doesnt need to sign for a GAA club or the GAA organisation as its a schools competition.
Therefore the lack of requirement to sign ANYTHING to do with the GAA negates the requirement to subscribe to the notions of nationhood etc etc that you take exception to.
There no signing anything or promotion of anything required, he just pulls on a jersey and kicks a ball.
however if he does enjoy it and decides to join a local club to further these skills, this is when your argument actually becomes an argument.

The part in bold answers your queston Sammy!!!!!

I like to think of myslef as a tolerant soul and I have for a long time now looked in with increasing dispair at the petty squabbles on these and similar issues and have vowed not to get involved but sweet suffering f**k I cant bide my tongue any longer.

Sammy let me give you a theoretical situation - I am aprimary school teacher in a state school. I used to play a bit of GAA but since I put on three stone and reached the over 35 mark I have sort of given up. I am no longer a member of the GAA. Now, along comes a GAA coach who offers his services to the school one day a week for two hours. The school accepts and for two hours a week he comes in and coaches the kids. He has all the child safety courses comlpete and all the appropriate police checks carried out so he is fully covered by the schools insurance. Amazingly he does not ask the kids to sign up to become members of the GAA because as has all ready been pointed out they do not have to, nor does he try and entice them along to the local club to register as underage players. He simply coahces them in the skills of Gaelic football and hurling. Now, shock horror, the kids enjoy the games and wonder could they maybe play some proper matches. I think, 'well, what the hell, i used to play a bit I could take them.'
And so here I am, a teacher in a state school taking a hurling team in my school and not me nor any of my pupils have had to become members of the GAA to do so and yet we are all covered by the appropriate insurances.

Now Sammy, does that hypothetical situation answer some of your questions? probably not.

What is ironic is that I believe that the Association should change the wording of someof their rules to reach out to those in the Unionist community but your blindess with regards this particular issue (schools/membership etc) is quite amazing.
Your inabilty to admit that there is even the tiniest smallest possibility that you could be wrong leaves your arguments hollow weak.

Go on, admit it.... you might be wrong.

if someone who is getting subjected to it wants to point to a scoreboard or raise their fingers in indication of how many titles they've won then power to them I reckon.

I don't think so. The proper way to behave is with a modicum of dignity and respect. You can't expect it all the time, I suppose, but at least the rules should require it. Why should we condone idiots aping the lowest common denominator in  the value-free commercial circus that is professional soccer? Just because that money-driven sorry tabloid-fodder nonsense has no relationship to real sport or sporting principles, the rest of us don't have to forget that the real purpose of sport is to promote decent values. If it's "more power to him" to give someone the finger, in full view of the nation, where do we stop? How many fingers are acceptable? Will it be mooning next?

If a player is getting dragged off the ball or as he goes to make a run there are 2 options he can take
a) Draw back his elbow or fist or b) Hurt the opposing player on the scoreboard and let him know about it. When the referee's, linesmen or umpires do fcuk all about off the ball stuff it is up to the forward to take whatever action he deems necessary

No. There are more than two options. Neither of those is acceptable, if "let him know about it" means put your fingers up in his face. The fact that the GAA president has issued a statement about the unacceptability of one of the two "options" doesn't render the other acceptable. It's not either-or.

Out of interest Hardy - what do you suggest a forward do if a defender is subjecting him to off the ball stuff? Should he draw the refs of umpires attention to it? I would say that if the officials are turning a blind eye to it then the forward is more than justified in returning the physicality.

"battle for hearts and minds" what the hell is that about. Sport is not some popularity contest where we have to get everybody to play it. Especially if it means, changing the whole ethos of the organisation.

What exactly do you consider to be the ethos of the GAA and where do u consider this ethos  came from?

The GAA is about the preservation of Irish language and sports but does this mean that only nationalists have the right to play our sports? The notion that a protestant/unionist cannot embrace irish sports and culture is lunacy.

The best things to do for nerves b4 a big game is to focus on only the things that you can control. i.e - you cannot control the crowd so dont worry about it. You cannot control how well the other players on your team will play so dont worry about it. Just concentrate on your own performance and make sure to think positive. Recall matches when you have played well and try and remember what you did in those games that meant you played well.
Don't think about the big picture or the impotance of the occassion simpy concentrate on the things that you do well and go out and do them. Its all in the head   

The 'War on Terror' always makes me laugh. How we can have a war on an emotion I will never know, might as well be a 'war on fear'. Laughable.

But getting on to this clash of civilisations I really think that we have to take a step back and look at the whole picture. To do that  you have to look at the history of the region. Russia and the US (With the help from the UK) has used the middle east like pawns in a chess match.
Russia with their infiltration into Afghanistan and America with its over throwing of the democratic Mossadeq government in Iran in the early 50's are just two examples of how these super poweres manipulated countries in this region to enhance their own tactical position, with it must be said absolutely no regard for the people living in these countries who were of course to suffer greatly by these early 'regime changes.'
In America's case this meddeling has continued ever since. Iran/Iraq war is an example of this. The problem is much of the middle east is based on the Arab tribe politics. This has been there way of life for nearly 2000 years, long b4 Islam was invented. This way of life coupled with the split in Islam bewtween fundamentalism and those who favoured a capitlist type future made for the perfect forming of two factions within the one religion who at times loathed each other.
Out of this it was no surprise that extreme organisations sprouted up who wanted to see death to the West. These were sporadic before 9/11. After that terrible day however the US and the UK only succeeded in nourishing what was very fertile ground. Death is horrific but it was the scale of death that occurred in 9/11 that created the response from America and in some ways it is totally understandable. But looking at it what was so different about 9/11 than other terrorist attacks carried out by Al Quada? They had used suicide tactics before and they had targeted examples of Western power. The only ifference being that this occurred on American soil and the death toil was huge.
But there is no doubting that the subsequent invasions of Afganistan and Iraq has allowed extremists groups swell thier ranks and if anything it has added to the glamour of becoming a suicide bomber.
The rise in the number of suicide bombers post 9/11 has been sharp to say the least compared with prior to 9/11.

Will a Christian group start bombing in the middle east? I doubt it. A different type of terroist exists in the Western World but there is every possibility that sporadic attacks could occur against innocent Muslim's in Western countires.

Muslims carry out attacks on other Muslims because as well as politically differences there is real religious differences as well. Sunni and Shia are subtle in their religious difference but it can be enough to cause hostility and conflict and to think the split happened all because they would not let Fatima take over! Women getting above their station and all that.