Messages

Would you ever have believed it?  Some serious soul searching needs done in that county over the next few months.  Where are all the players who refused to commit?  Why is there STILL no real proper strategy to develop the game in Derry city?  How come a club with three or four of the best clubs in Ulster, can end up in Division 4?  And all these clubs were there when they were winning the All Ireland and Ulsters, so the attitude can't have changer THAT much.  And if it has, well why has it? .  How come a county with two of the top Ulster schools for MacRory (champions three out of the last 4 years) be in Division 4?  Derry are in Division 4.  Jut say that slowly...,  Seamus Heaney, Martin McGuinness, Dana, John Hume, Anthony Tohill, Derry Girls, Nadine Coyle, that Aileen girl from the Graham Norton Big Red Chair, Gregory Campbell - Your county is in Division 4!!

Actually one of the better ones tonight.

Just one problem with TV3.  Viewers in Ni cannot get that station, so Ireland's second city would not get to watch GAA games.  Imagine the furore about that!  Part of the GAA deal with BBC initially was that BBCNI would be able to get the games into areas not covered by RTE in the analogue days.  Then, BBC did all the games, including the Ai and semi finals, regardless who was in it.

I would have no problem with any of that, but the reason the SKY deal exists is because RTE couldn't be trusted to pay the GAA what the games are worth.  Selling games packages is a bit like selling a house - it is only worth what two competing bidders are prepared to pay.  Until Sky entered the arena as serious contenders, RTE were their usual stagnant, complacent selves and they have upped their price and the quality of their coverage significantly since SKY came in.  However, there is still a bad memory in the GAA  of when RTE were the only player in town, and the GAA actually had to PAY RTE for the right to show the four games they used to show every year.  Therefore, the GAA will not take any lessons from current RTE pundits who are complaining that there is a paywall for some games.  The only reason that SKY is in the field is because RTE would not properly show the games, or pay the money they were worth.  If you want a good up to date version of that story, just look at League Sunday - a rehash of games already shown by TG4 and Eir, no coverage of any other game, apart from a couple of cameras at the other 2 Div. 1 games, a bit of studio analysis and commentators who don't even go to the games, but do them from RTE.  If they were serious about it, RTE would have 1 - Bid against Eir for the Saturday night package, but they didn't and 2 - Show how serious they are by sending a proper OB outfit to the 2 games on a Sunday not covered by TG4 and do a major fifteen minute segment on them, complete with analysis.  But they don't...  Goodbye Ryle. 

I think he mentioned the Gresham.  I doubt if they would have been staying there, to be honest.  And on a practical level, hotel windows have to be latched in such a way as to make opening them to throw anything or anybody out of them impossible.  Toughened glass too.  Practical, insurance concerns.  So that's actually a lie he told. 

Re the Trinity Boathouse incident.  It was just an utterly shameful episode and totally against what the GAA is about.  That boatclubs may not be from the same tradition as GAA people, but that does not make them 'legitimate targets'.  The thugs who wrecked it that night were despicable scumbags. 

If that's the sort of behaviour Brolly wants to make into a nice warm folk tale, it's his business, but it's further evidence of his sense of values, his ability to distort facts and his penchant to tell a total lie if it helps the story.

In yesterday's Sindo, Joe Brolly did one of his humorously reflective pieces where he makes folk heroes out of... the thugs who disgraced the integrity of the GAA at the 1990 Sigerson weekend hosted by Trinity College. Utter drunken scumbags wrecked, vandalized and laid waste to the Trinity University Boathouse which was kindly given to the GAA for a social night on the Saturday night. What occurred that night was a blight on the reputation of the GAA and Higher Efucation and the antithesis of every value the GAA holds dear.

But sure as long as Joe gets a few funny stories in, what's the harm.

...and he was a student of TCD at the time.

In the last week I have been accused of being Paraic Duffy and Ray D'Arcy! 

Christy Moore
Marty Morrissey
Benny Tierney
Michael Collins
Mary McAleese
Heffo
Micko
Paudie

https://www.balls.ie/gaa/resignations-kerry-amid-attempt-oust-kingdom-minor-ladies-manager-383556

Came to our club a few years ago. Refused point blank to take any money, despite staying for a long time and being a real inspiration to the children. He's a total legend. Never cynical, no ego, just a really decent, civil fella who is such an incredible role model to any aspiring forwards. I'm confident he will return.

...although he actually never appeared at the hearing.

That's right. 

I know I shouldn't, but Joe Brolly's article today has to be a new low, even for him.  He's like that old band who had a few great albums but now is writing just pure shite because he knows he has to and in any case, he'll get paid.  Here's his latest, with annotations in red from me;

I am constantly advising clubs about disciplinary offences and CCC investigations. It is a depressing thing to see the contempt in which volunteers, players and clubs are held by the authorities.
That's right Joe - It's meddlers like you and your like in the legal profession  who have the GAA rule book the way it is because you can find some stupid loophole to get the local thug off breaking a man's jaw.
The GAA's chaotic, complex rule book, with its built-in presumptions, has created a tyranny. It has given the nod to the GAA courts to interpret them - if at all possible - in a way that is against the GAA community.
Not really – Just trying to interpret them in a way that makes the games fair.
This explains why it is virtually impossible to get a fair hearing, and why so many good GAA volunteers are left seething. After a recent case I was involved in, the chairman and secretary of the club left the hearing swearing that they were finished with the GAA. If you're involved with the GAA, you've been there.
I have been there, though I've never been so moved as to want to be finished with the GAA.  See the last paragraph of your article Joe and you'll understand why these 'good GAA volunteers can't always be trusted'.
Take for example the rule that the referee's report is "presumed to be correct in all factual matters and may only be rebutted where unedited video or other compelling evidence contradicts it". This is actually interpreted in the following way: 'You smart-asses might have a video showing the whole episode, and establishing that it was the number 12 and not the 10, but the referee says it was number 10 and so there is nothing we can do. We're sorry that he's the captain and he's going to miss the first under 16 final in the club's history, but our hands are tied. Next case.'
That's actually legally wrong Joe and slightly embarrassing for someone in your profession.  Video evidence, or the witness of a 'person of standing' such as a member of CCC who might have been at the match can and has on many occasions trumped the referee's report.  The referee is also asked to 'clarify' his report which can lead to a greater insight into what actually happened.  But yes – the referee must be respected and his report must be seen as authentic, otherwise it becomes total chaos Joe, when people like you show up to contest it.
If Pope Francis himself appeared in person and said he had witnessed the entire incident and that it was the number 12, they would still suspend the number 10. The chairman of the disciplinary hearing would say, "We fully understand the doctrine of papal infallibility, but, unfortunately, it does not appear anywhere in the GAA rule book. Holy Father, our hands are tied."
You're wrong on that Joe.  As above.  You're embarrassing yourself now.
The same applies to our approach to transfers, which has long been perverse and unfair. I cannot tell you the number of cases I have had to take to the DRA (the independent review body that is outside the GAA) in order to get a fair result. Four years ago, I advised on and drafted the transfer applications of young twins, both of whom were extremely talented sportsmen.


The requests were entirely reasonable. (according to you) The board rejected them of course. They appealed to the Hearings Committee, which expressed great sympathy in that classic GAA way, then sadly rejected them. A few months ago, on my way to another similar travesty, I remembered the twins and rang their father. "They haven't kicked a ball since Joe. They switched to the soccer and are going very well."
Not even playing for their school, Joe? Not knowing the ins and outs of this one, it sounds like a couple of glory hunters who wanted to leave their own club and go after the medals.  I thought you didn't like this Joe – Remember the time you went after Seanie Johnston?

I am involved in a case at the moment where the parents (both fanatical GAA people) are seriously considering putting their house on the market so their young sons can transfer to the club they played with under sanction for the last four years. The emotional toll of this is huge. None of this is relevant. Computer says no.
Sanctions Joe.  Yeah – that's the transfer rule that allows wee clubs to survive.  If you can't field at underage, you 'loan' the player out to a bigger club to let him get hurling and then he agrees to come back to you when he's older.  Is that what you're complaining about?
Of all the unsavoury aspects of the rules, perhaps the worst is the rule that requires club officials to identify supporters who might have come onto the pitch or been involved in some sort of incident.
That's right Joe – It's called 'integrity'.  You write quite a lot about that.
I am currently involved in a case where senior club officials had to identify some of their own supporters, whose images had been enhanced by a professional audio-visual company. This had obviously cost the county board a considerable amount, but when it comes to humiliating the clubs and club people, money is no object. As long as the county manager gets everything he wants, nothing else matters.
Imagine the county board trying to drill down to get justice.  And you call this 'humiliating the clubs?'  Really Joe?  A county Board trying to enhance footage of some thug striking a young lad and you call this 'humiliating the club?'  Your sense of justice is quite strange, for a man of the law.
Many years ago, Croke Park held one of the first investigations using video footage into shenanigans during a game. All parties were called to Croke Park, including the respective chairmen and secretaries. When the audience was assembled, the curtains were drawn and the projector was switched on. The chair of the panel paused the film as each fresh outrage occurred.

One of the players in attendance was seen pole-axing an opposing selector. There was really no defence, so he was punished there and then with a suspension of some months. Plainly annoyed, he had to sit there as the rest of the drama unfolded, his chairman and secretary beside him.
Imagine the injustice of asking a thug who 'poleaxed a selector' to wait until the end of the hearing.  What utter nonsense Joe.  Did the Indo really allow you to print that paragraph, or did you get to the end of the article and realise your word count wasn't big enough?
There was, however, one man who could not be identified by the panel. He was a supporter, who could clearly be seen wearing his team's colours under a sheepskin jacket. At one point, he ran onto the pitch and could be seen on the footage throwing a flurry of punches at an opposing player. The footage was paused at the appropriate moment, capturing the offender's face in full technicolor glory. "I am now going to ask the chairman to identify this man to the panel," said the 'judge'. The chairman squinted, and scratched his head and whispered to the secretary beside him.
After a whole palaver, he said, "I am sorry members of the panel, but I have never seen this man before in my life." "The same question to the secretary," said the judge. The secretary went through the same pretence, shaking his head and squinting at the screen, before sadly turning to the panel and saying, "Hand on heart, I cannot identify this man."At which point, the disgruntled player said, "Well that's strange, since you were both at his wedding."

A lovely funny little story to finish Joe and a total contradiction of everything you've written about the 'poor volunteer'.  And of course, the CCC, hearings Committee.  Are they not also volunteers too? And the victims of the thuggery you are making a joke of? And this little story illustrates the very reason the GAA needs its rule book Joe.  Because people like you will take the side of people like those who will defend the actions of thugs in their club.  You talk a lot about values Joe.  If you find that story funny, you don't have any yourself.  This article is your worst ever.  As a man who is involved in law, it is a serious indictment on your own world view.  It is an illogical mess, full of contradictions and plainly legally incorrect.

Not for the first time, but the Indo just loves that the GAA got another boot today form its favourite puppet...

Ray D'Arcy is an excellent broadcaster. His radio show is interesting and he is a brilliant interviewer. His TV show is probably affected by the caliber of guest RTE can get him after LLS has hovered up anyone with even slight celebrity status. He's basically left with what's left in the canteen. But he is definitely a gifted broadcaster. And a really nice guy.

Excellent answers there easytiger. Really informative. Thanks.