Messages

In fairness to Breheny, he pushed the "open Croke Park" ever since he worked with the Irish Press Group in the 1980s, ie long before he worked for Sir AJF.

That said, I have been taken aback by how readily he has swallowed the GPA agenda in its entirety in recent years. Most of what he has written on the grants issue has been cringeworthy. And that's being charitable...

The poor soul. Its obvious that he hasn't a clue how the rest of us can manage to combine regular GAA committee meetings with holding down a job at the same time.

Ultimately if anyone in Cork or elsewhere wants to question the validity of a County Board vote or decision on the basis of being undemocratic or improper in any way, they can take their case to the DRA.

Not many people in most clubs want to be club delegates,

Not in my club. I don't think clubs have problems finding delegates. The delegate attendance at my county's monthly meeting is about 95% on average - nearer 100% if you exclude July when some people are on holidays. I presume Cork is similar.

I don't think you can take the fact that clubs didn't demand their removal as evidence that they are necessarily happy with the vote. Lots of people are not happy with players decision to stike and many don't support it, the second vote, I believe was in part the club delegates getting their back up over the players threath of a strike.

This is a very complicated issue and there are a lot of grey areas 

I think you are agreeing with me here. The delegates DID have their reasons for voting as they did, even if these reasons are complicated.

whatever way you cut it a vote that doesn't express the wish of the majority can't be a successful application of the democratic process.

But the votes DID express the wishes of the majority. Otherwise the majority would have voted No.
                           

The players are willing to put this to the delegates again next year on the condition that the CB executive support a return to the original method of selecting a management team. I think that tells a lot about how the players believe the democratic process works.

If the players want (through their clubs) to put the issue to a vote once again next year, then they are fully entitled to do so. That is democracy. However it strikes me as odd that they seem prepared to accept the results of County Board votes when a vote goes their way, but claim a lack of democracy when a vote goes against their wishes.

But that is the whole point, delegates are meant to represent their clubs opinion not their own or even their club chairmans or secretary. Did all the clubs call a meeting of all their members and get their opinions? I know of at least three clubs that didn't. Did all the delegates vote as their clubs instructed? It wouldn't be the first time if some didn't. If clubs did call a meeting was it properly debated? Again, I can't fathom how you can vote to bring in something that nobody seems to support.

The clubs have already voted TWICE on this subject. Would you like them to vote a third time?. Do you think the result would be any different?

If any club is unhappy with their county board delegates, they can remove them, either at AGM or EGM. Has ANY club taken such an action in the light of the previous votes? If not, I don't think your "undemocatic" allegation holds much water.

[all]

if no-one wants the 'new' system as proposed by the CB then how can a vote which endorses it, be democratic?

But the delegates DO want the new system. They voted for it, democratically, not once but twice.

And the second time they voted for it, they did so in the full knowledge that their decision would cause controversy.

And as I said earlier

...the club delegates to the County Board are hardly all irrational? They must have had good reason for insisting that the County Board pick the selectors, even if this in most circumstances would not be regarded as the ideal?

To take another example, this time from politics. In last May's election, the Irish people voted to re-elect the outgoing government. A month later, some people who voted FF were telling opinion pollsters that they didn't support either FF or its leader. The general conclusion was that large numbers of people seemed to have voted in the election for FF, not on the basis that they liked or supported FF, but because they regarded FF as the best option available, or "the best of a bad lot" as it were.

There may be a contradiction here, but I don't think you could label the 2007 election as "undemocratic" simply because of this contradiction. Likewise the Cork delegates' vote.

[all]

I mean that no-one I have spoken to ( and I know many GAA people in Cork) or no-one on any discussion board (including this one, rebelgaa and AFR) have ever even suggested that the proposal was the correct method of selecting a backroom staff. That is a pretty wide range of people and would include many people who don't support the players strike. So is it possible that the club members of Cork have a view point that is polar opposite to all these people, I don't think anyone could argue that.

But the club delegates to the County Board are hardly all irrational? They must have had good reason for insisting that the County Board pick the selectors, even if this in most circumstances would not be regarded as the ideal?

Very interesting to read this article from Martin Breheny. I wonder how feels now about his comments on the subject, only a month ago?

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/disgruntled-rump-must-accept-the-majority-rule-1244656.html

Disgruntled 'rump' must accept the majority rule
By Martin Breheny
Wednesday December 12 2007

Maybe it's time for Nickey Brennan to produce a Gerry Collins moment, look straight into the TV lens and urge disaffected GAA members to take a step back just as Collins famously did in the early 1990s when he urged Albert Reynolds not to "burst the party" by challenging Charlie Haughey for the leadership of Fianna Fail.

Then again, Brennan should perhaps tell the GAA's disgruntled rump that, having made their point on player grants, they must accept democracy and desist from trying to direct the GAA into dangerously choppy waters.

...

What makes the objectors' tactics look silly is that they must now realise the futility of their actions. The horse hasn't just bolted -- it's heading for the second circuit by now. What's more, the stable door was willingly opened by all 32 counties who had unanimously agreed to support the grants scheme.

Had Central Council bowed to the undemocratic call for a re-think last Saturday, chaos would have ensued. Thankfully, they held their nerve and that should be the end of it.

Grand-standing on alleged points of principle which aren't backed up by a mandate may attract media attention but it can never be more than an empty act of defiance.

ps Has Liam Mulvihill not retired yet?