The Cancer at The Heart of the GAA

[BallyhaiseMan]

Opened Thread,
Seen it was the Sindo, wasn't suprised.
A Greater shower of west brit ringpieces, you could not find.

[INDIANA]

"If you want success, you got to pay for it,"

And that is the issue in a nutshell.

Is it win at all costs, or is it amateurism with no cost?

Brian Cody and Pat Gilroy dont get paid. So the above statement is inaccurate

[Zulu]

The manager is merely the tip of the service iceberg in any club. To single him out for reward and ignore all the other coaches, all the teachers in the parish, the grass-cutters, fund raisers, pitch-liners and other club die-hards, not to mention the players, amazes me.

Managers don't get paid in their own club (by and large) but if you asked the fund raisers or the man who maintains your neighbouring clubs pitch to do the same for your club would you expect them to do it for free?

Then there is this argument: Paying a manager to achieve more success forces the next club to divert funds to a manager to keep pace. Quickly all clubs have to divert funds just to remain in the same place. Then a club decides to pay for a 'big' manager, which costs more & more money, and every club has to follow suit again to remain in the same place. 'Success at any cost' becomes a cost for everyone, success or no success.

Why does it? That argument only stands up if paying a manager guarantees success and if there aren't any clubs with good coaches of their own. This isn't the case, if a club feels it needs an outside manager it gets one and (maybe) pays him a few bob, even if he is successful there is no reason every other club will follow suit and it is ridiculous to say otherwise.

The only truly level playing field would be a total ban with severe penalties for any discretions.

A total ban on what? Outside managers, sure that isn't a level playing field. If some clubs can't get people to take their teams then they need to be able to go outside for someone who can. That man might only be getting legitimate expenses or if he is getting more than that then so what? If he doesn't take the team then they may have to coach themselves or else cajole a guy who can't do the job and this only leads to frustration and disappointment for all.

Look, there is no one size fits all in this scenario. Some clubs don't need outside help, paid or otherwise, some do and they must be allowed to get this help. If they pay ridiculous money for poor managers then that is their own fault and every club must cut their cloth to measure. Once they do that I don't see why anybody else should be crying into their tea about how they spend their money.

[NaomhBridAbú]

What if the manager happens to be a sports coach professional? Someone who actually works with teams of different sports for a living?

I know of some clubs where 'professionals' get paid for their services - solicitors, who act on behalf of the club, accountants, facilities managers etc...the man that prepares the food for the after match mean, gets paid...so, if you have employed the services of a genuine professional sports coach, then should he get paid?

I have always been an anti pay-for-play person, but i see the merit of bringing in a person who can establish systems for the development of underage teams, motivation and leadership techniques and not just a man for looking after the seniors.

Most clubs look at the short term, and typically take a man in to do a job over 2-3 years, but it may be work considering the benefits of paying for genuine long term strategic thinking....

[tyronehead]

Interesting if posters could contribute to the debate and in relation to clubs within their own counties , are there many clubs breaking the GAA rules ?
Or maybe a better question would be what  clubs are not paying their senior manager?

[brokencrossbar1]

Cross don't pay for managers and only once appointed an 'outside' man many moons ago. They do bring in outside coaches all the time who would be key in the physical preperation. The difference is that you have a network of good coaches within the club and a proper system. That would be the ideal for other clubs but some are not in a position to do it.

Interesting if posters could contribute to the debate and in relation to clubs within their own counties , are there many clubs breaking the GAA rules ?
Or maybe a better question would be what  clubs are not paying their senior manager?

[DuffleKing]

Cross are in the same situation as the majority of clubs. They have always (in recent times) paid for an outsider to train the team and I believe they for a second man to take care of gym work. The majority of clubs can find a manager to oversee things + run the line but more and more senior clubs are having trouble finding someone to physically prepare their teams with the progress that has been made in this area.

[Hardy]

I'm never able to understand why the manager, alone among the various people and firms who provide services to teams, is singled out as the only one who shouldn't be paid in any circumstances. It's doubly puzzling when you consider that he's probably the most important service provider and undoubtedly the one who devotes the most time to it.

What's the logic?

The manager is merely the tip of the service iceberg in any club. To single him out for reward and ignore all the other coaches, all the teachers in the parish, the grass-cutters, fund raisers, pitch-liners and other club die-hards, not to mention the players, amazes me.

We have two diametrically opposite ways of looking at it. You're asking why the manager should be the only one singled out from all the volunteers and get paid. I'm asking why the manager should be the only service provider to be singled out and expected to do it free.

I'm totally against pay for play. But I'm totally in favour of continuing to provide our members with the best of services and facilities in their pursuit of their sport. We do this better than any other sports organisation I can think of. Our players enjoy facilities, training and coaching, all provided free, undreamt of by amateurs in any other sport. The manager/coach is probably the most important of all the service providers in delivering this.

I'm a member of the local tennis club. It's run almost entirely on a volunteer basis. Family membership is about €180 per annum. We have three floodlit courts for which we pay per game via a coin meter. Committee members and some others (rarely including me, as it happens) paint and cut grass and mend fences, etc. on a volunteer basis. The club pays a professional coach to come in and take the youngsters twice a week. He also prepares club teams for inter-club competitions and individuals or groups occasionally sign up for private coaching sessions for which they also pay. This all seems reasonable to all concerned and I have yet to hear anyone threaten to withdraw their voluntary activities because the coach gets paid. On the contrary, they're delighted with the job he does.

This seems to me to be a reasonable analogy to the GAA situation. To suggest the manager/coach should be a volunteer while all the other providers of services from the physio to the bus driver, the caterers, the doctor, the gym, etc. (none of whom devote more than a small fraction of the time to it that the manager does) continue to get paid seems bizarre to me.

To suggest that deciding to pay the biggest contributor would put an end to volunteerism seems equally bizarre. Why haven't the grass cutters and line painters mutinied at the payments to doctors and transport companies? They don't expect them to contribute their services for nothing.

[Bingo]

I think the biggest gripe nowadays is the quailty of coaches/managers that are coming in and also the quality that he may have to work with.

In some clubs they appoint a decent manager who has a certain outlook to the game and approach to it. He comes in and everything that he tries to implement fails cause the players have a totally different approach to him, be it in terms of mental toughness, style of play, basic skill set, physcial conditioning etc etc. He will try and improse his style on the team, some players don't take to it and their is a split in the camp. Not as if he can go into transfer market to get players to fit his gameplan/style of play. The manager has does nothing wrong but will be labelled a waste of money, clubteam hasn't really progresses and their is demand for change. Maybe if he had 3 years with the club, the change would come but very often its one year here and there and nothing changes.

Another is that the coach/manager was a decent player and big reputation. He studied in DCU or UUJ recently to get  a sports science degree. He is appointed manager for club and is clueless. Hasn't served time at Mgt level for a senior team ie selector, coaching advisor, etc etc. He is all drills and cones. He'll get a great turnout at start of year, he "knows his stuff" but quickly when it comes to actually winning games and tactics he is nowhere near the required level. Bascially he is a fitness coach. He'll take money and run - adds little to the club. Again he could last only a year and move on.

I know one club who had a manager like the later one their. Would know on their clubmen well and he said your man landed at training and he would set out the prettiest colour coordinated cones and polls before training. He'd run pretty drills all night. He believed that players size and fitness should suit certain positions only, so he put players into positions they'd never played before and left them there. Half through season, players had left, he was still running his drills and he left the field, jumped in car and was gone before the lights where out. They got a few club men in, they got back to basics, players back, played to strengths and they won 6 out of last 8 games but where still relegated.

I'm sure these two stories can be replayed all over county at all levels.

Maybe its a case of not enough though going into appointments - it a case of get someone sorted, let them worry about it then. You have managers/coaches chasing the money and clubs been unrealistic of what a manager can do.

[lynchbhoy]

I'm never able to understand why the manager, alone among the various people and firms who provide services to teams, is singled out as the only one who shouldn't be paid in any circumstances. It's doubly puzzling when you consider that he's probably the most important service provider and undoubtedly the one who devotes the most time to it.
What's the logic?

The manager is merely the tip of the service iceberg in any club. To single him out for reward and ignore all the other coaches, all the teachers in the parish, the grass-cutters, fund raisers, pitch-liners and other club die-hards, not to mention the players, amazes me.

We have two diametrically opposite ways of looking at it. You're asking why the manager should be the only one singled out from all the volunteers and get paid. I'm asking why the manager should be the only service provider to be singled out and expected to do it free.
I'm totally against pay for play. But I'm totally in favour of continuing to provide our members with the best of services and facilities in their pursuit of their sport. We do this better than any other sports organisation I can think of. Our players enjoy facilities, training and coaching, all provided free, undreamt of by amateurs in any other sport. The manager/coach is probably the most important of all the service providers in delivering this.
I'm a member of the local tennis club. It's run almost entirely on a volunteer basis. Family membership is about €180 per annum. We have three floodlit courts for which we pay per game via a coin meter. Committee members and some others (rarely including me, as it happens) paint and cut grass and mend fences, etc. on a volunteer basis. The club pays a professional coach to come in and take the youngsters twice a week. He also prepares club teams for inter-club competitions and individuals or groups occasionally sign up for private coaching sessions for which they also pay. This all seems reasonable to all concerned and I have yet to hear anyone threaten to withdraw their voluntary activities because the coach gets paid. On the contrary, they're delighted with the job he does.

This seems to me to be a reasonable analogy to the GAA situation. To suggest the manager/coach should be a volunteer while all the other providers of services from the physio to the bus driver, the caterers, the doctor, the gym, etc. (none of whom devote more than a small fraction of the time to it that the manager does) continue to get paid seems bizarre to me.
To suggest that deciding to pay the biggest contributor would put an end to volunteerism seems equally bizarre. Why haven't the grass cutters and line painters mutinied at the payments to doctors and transport companies? They don't expect them to contribute their services for nothing.

Great example Hardy and I agree with you 100% here.

One other aspect of 'legitimising' expenses would be that the taxman will start to claim his share of the money.
This will only end up driving the cost of the manager upwards – as the manager will still want a decent rate of expense in order to
Make it worth his while to coach/manage a team.
If a manager or coach is no use, then they will soon get 'let go' by the GAA committee.
Have played under plenty of managers in my time and most of the home grown volunteers are dreadful – they do it for free but a lot of them haven't a clue and often cause more mutiny's than anything else.
There are reasons for an outside man to come in and that means paying him – maybe not the figures that some suggest, but for the top level clubs – that is often what it paid. Not so when dealing with junior or indeed intermediate clubs.

[muppet]

I'm never able to understand why the manager, alone among the various people and firms who provide services to teams, is singled out as the only one who shouldn't be paid in any circumstances. It's doubly puzzling when you consider that he's probably the most important service provider and undoubtedly the one who devotes the most time to it.

What's the logic?

The manager is merely the tip of the service iceberg in any club. To single him out for reward and ignore all the other coaches, all the teachers in the parish, the grass-cutters, fund raisers, pitch-liners and other club die-hards, not to mention the players, amazes me.

We have two diametrically opposite ways of looking at it. You're asking why the manager should be the only one singled out from all the volunteers and get paid. I'm asking why the manager should be the only service provider to be singled out and expected to do it free.

I'm totally against pay for play. But I'm totally in favour of continuing to provide our members with the best of services and facilities in their pursuit of their sport. We do this better than any other sports organisation I can think of. Our players enjoy facilities, training and coaching, all provided free, undreamt of by amateurs in any other sport. The manager/coach is probably the most important of all the service providers in delivering this.

I'm a member of the local tennis club. It's run almost entirely on a volunteer basis. Family membership is about €180 per annum. We have three floodlit courts for which we pay per game via a coin meter. Committee members and some others (rarely including me, as it happens) paint and cut grass and mend fences, etc. on a volunteer basis. The club pays a professional coach to come in and take the youngsters twice a week. He also prepares club teams for inter-club competitions and individuals or groups occasionally sign up for private coaching sessions for which they also pay. This all seems reasonable to all concerned and I have yet to hear anyone threaten to withdraw their voluntary activities because the coach gets paid. On the contrary, they're delighted with the job he does.

This seems to me to be a reasonable analogy to the GAA situation. To suggest the manager/coach should be a volunteer while all the other providers of services from the physio to the bus driver, the caterers, the doctor, the gym, etc. (none of whom devote more than a small fraction of the time to it that the manager does) continue to get paid seems bizarre to me.

To suggest that deciding to pay the biggest contributor would put an end to volunteerism seems equally bizarre. Why haven't the grass cutters and line painters mutinied at the payments to doctors and transport companies? They don't expect them to contribute their services for nothing.

You seem to be arguing that the manager is the only service provider in a club that isn't paid, is that correct? I couldn't disagree more.

Your tennis coach is a professional and personally takes care of most of the coaching at all levels by the sound of it. The paid GAA manager in a club typically (there may be exceptions) manages the senior team exclusively and maybe the U-21 team. That usually represents a faction of the football management needs of a top GAA club and its parish. However the other 'management needs' is exactly my point. The heroic teacher I mentioned earlier in the thread has been completely ignored in this debate. He does more imho for the GAA in his parish than any manager, for free.

The underage team managers, who probably also raise money and contribute to the coffers themselves, along with all their time, must be delighted to see such a significant proportion of the club budget going to one man who is doing a similar job to themselves, albeit at a higher level. To me it resembles a pyramid scheme.

[Man Marker]

The underage team managers, who probably also raise money and contribute to the coffers themselves, along with all their time, must be delighted to see such a significant proportion of the club budget going to one man who is doing a similar job to themselves, albeit at a higher level. To me it resembles a pyramid scheme.

How can one discuss something with someone when they have confirmed that they haven't remotely got a clue of the time required to do this job properly. Similiar job to an U14 manager? Give it up

[JHume]

As an organisation, the GAA clearly doesn't have the balls to resolve this payment to managers issue by itself.

If it takes the taxman to come in and regularise and clean it up, then so be it.

When we children can't fix it ourselves, it will take the adults to come and sort it. (The same thing has happened with the IMF/EU coming in to run the country for us.)

Paying cash to managers is right or wrong, depending on your perspective, but if that manager fails to declare the income in his tax return he'll be liable for it.

As an employer, you have an obligation that your employees' tax contributions are made. But if you're employing a contractor – like an outside GAA manager, and especially anyone who has managed a number of different teams – its up to the contractor to ensure his tax affairs are in order.

Hell rub it into anyone the Revenue catches for receiving such payments and not declaring them.

They were quick enough to take the money in the first place. Fines, penalties and interest should, and will, be applied to offenders and I won't shed any tears for them.

[screenexile]

The point about lottery money etc is also moot. I don't think too many managers are getting paid directly out of Club/County coffers. It is almost always a "well known clubman" who foots the bill and the whole thing is taken away from the Club altogether. How do you catch these guys? To be honest I can't really make my mind up on the issue. On the one hand it sickens me to see what is expected of ordinary people these days for no reward. The training the Dubs and most other Counties around Ireland is madness but undoubtedly that is the price of success. . . do you want to win or do you want to stay true to the values of the GAA?

[muppet]

The underage team managers, who probably also raise money and contribute to the coffers themselves, along with all their time, must be delighted to see such a significant proportion of the club budget going to one man who is doing a similar job to themselves, albeit at a higher level. To me it resembles a pyramid scheme.

How can one discuss something with someone when they have confirmed that they haven't remotely got a clue of the time required to do this job properly. Similiar job to an U14 manager? Give it up

Does your club only have a senior team and an U-14 team? I said top club.