GAA doing a deal with SkySports

[orangeman]

So if the top brass in the GAA had publicly announced and conceded that the Sky deal was accepted as it was going to bring on board the best media operator in the world ( which they did say ), that the GAA could benefit from the global presence of Sky AND that they got a good few quid out of the deal, more than TV3 could have paid and that if anything the revenue stream over time was going to dramatically increase, would we have been happier ?. In other words a bit of honesty rather than spin.

Short answer is yes.

And I think most would agree with that and would accept that and leave less room for complaint. There's too much spin coming out of headquarters. Most communication is sent out with a degree of spin on it.

[AZOffaly]

That is a fair point roney, and I think you are spot on. See my previous post. However, this is the target whether Sky are involved or not. The commercial model in the GAA is very much about increasing exposure to multiple sponsors to both mitigate any sponsor leaving (all the eggs in one basket) and to increase revenue in total by having more sponsors paying a bit less each.

You are right that a sponsor wants maximum exposure and they will not want to hear about an intercounty season shortening or with less games. If anything, I suspect they'd like a championship that went on for 6 or 7 months.

The question, which is a fundemental one, before us as an Organisation is:

a) Do we want to maximise the revenue accrued, and use the monies gathered to reinvest in our grassroots (clubs, facilities) as well as county teams

OR

b) Do we want to maximise the importance of the club game in the calendar, potentially eliminating some of that funding.


I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

AZ. Who is "we' ?. There are competing interests now. When you say that a large portion of funds would be distributed to clubs, I assume you're talking about funds being distributed indirectly in the form of coaching etc without cheques being written to individual units ?.

We are the GAA. It is a democratic organisation, in theory, which has channels for any and all viewpoints to be aired and passed at various units all the way up to Congress. Competing interests in a democratic organisation is not a new concept, but the idea is that which ever 'interest' has the most support carries the day. The GAA consititution is set up in such a way that it requires a 2/3 majority to do so in most cases.

When I say, in my scenario, that a large proportion of funds may be allocated for club development from inter county games, I'm talking about in the same manner it is now. Grants for infrastructure, coaching and the provision of coaches. But that while the county game contributes to this, the clubs are left to their own devices in individual counties in terms of running their competitions and they do not have access to their county players.

[roney]

That is a fair point roney, and I think you are spot on. See my previous post. However, this is the target whether Sky are involved or not. The commercial model in the GAA is very much about increasing exposure to multiple sponsors to both mitigate any sponsor leaving (all the eggs in one basket) and to increase revenue in total by having more sponsors paying a bit less each.

You are right that a sponsor wants maximum exposure and they will not want to hear about an intercounty season shortening or with less games. If anything, I suspect they'd like a championship that went on for 6 or 7 months.

The question, which is a fundemental one, before us as an Organisation is:

a) Do we want to maximise the revenue accrued, and use the monies gathered to reinvest in our grassroots (clubs, facilities) as well as county teams

OR

b) Do we want to maximise the importance of the club game in the calendar, potentially eliminating some of that funding.


I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

Agree AZ and a good post. Sky is merely the vehicle not the driver.

This ever increasing drive to 'promote the GAA overseas' is also part of it. There's a billion dollar industry out there in terms of the global sports market. In purely monetary terms it probably makes sense but to me, at least, it is wrong. The day we view the GAA as a commercial entity is the day it begins to fall apart.

When you have an army of paid executives and staff you have to come up with a strategy. They're good at what they do so they compete in the areas in which they excel. However, this threatens to erode the very ethos that makes the GAA what is it in the first place. I'm not sure they fully grasp that.

Clubs on the ground are already becoming detached from the counties. If it's not addressed by the membership of the GAA then what you outline will come to pass.

How much money is enough? You have asked the correct and fundamental question now which the GAA (all of us) has to answer.

[AZOffaly]

That is a fair point roney, and I think you are spot on. See my previous post. However, this is the target whether Sky are involved or not. The commercial model in the GAA is very much about increasing exposure to multiple sponsors to both mitigate any sponsor leaving (all the eggs in one basket) and to increase revenue in total by having more sponsors paying a bit less each.

You are right that a sponsor wants maximum exposure and they will not want to hear about an intercounty season shortening or with less games. If anything, I suspect they'd like a championship that went on for 6 or 7 months.

The question, which is a fundemental one, before us as an Organisation is:

a) Do we want to maximise the revenue accrued, and use the monies gathered to reinvest in our grassroots (clubs, facilities) as well as county teams

OR

b) Do we want to maximise the importance of the club game in the calendar, potentially eliminating some of that funding.


I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

Agree AZ and a good post. Sky is merely the vehicle not the driver.

This ever increasing drive to 'promote the GAA overseas' is also part of it. There's a billion dollar industry out there in terms of the global sports market. In purely monetary terms in probably makes sense but to me at least it is wrong. The day we view the GAA as a commercial entity is the day it begins to fall apart.

When you have an army of paid executives and staff you have to come up with a strategy. They're good at what they do so they compete in the areas in which they excel. However, this threatens to erode the very ethos that makes the GAA what is it in the first place. I'm not sure they fully grasp that.

Clubs on the ground are already becoming detached from the counties. If it's not addressed by the membership of the GAA then what you outline will come to pass.

How much money is enough?

I'm going to agree with you on some points, and not others

On promoting the GAA overseas, I have to say I see nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If the aim is to spread the community ethos and enjoyment of our games, then I'm all for that. If the aim is to spread it, SIMPLY to open up commercial avenues, then yes I think that's less noble. I lived in Arizona for 4 years, hence the name. I played football with a club in San Diego, and I've started a club in Phoenix. I've seen both clubs struggle for numbers and games, so anything that gives more exposure would help them, and I would be in favour of it, *as long as it does not hurt clubs at home* but I see no reason why it should or would.

I do agree that the GAA should not be about making the most money it can, it should ALWAYS be secondary to the welfare of its players, and its games. However, we would be foolish not to understand that a well run commercial arm could maximise the money so that it can be spent in helping our players and our clubs in the form of coaching, facilities and other benefits. We can't run our games without money, we can't improve our clubs and players experience without money, but we can't let money run the game.

[theskull1]

I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

I too have that suspicion and if it becomes a black and white as that, I'll vote with my feet. If my club develops talent that come senior stops representing the club because they've done too good a job fostered that talent, there ain't much incentive to do it to the best of your ability? Or will U8 coaches be on the payroll by then? 

[AZOffaly]

I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

I too have that suspicion and if it becomes a black and white as that, I'll vote with my feet. If my club develops talent that come senior stops representing the club because they've done too good a job fostered that talent, there ain't much incentive to do it to the best of your ability? Or will U8 coaches be on the payroll by then? 

I'd say the club structures will stay exactly as they are, but players will graduate to the county squads and that will be the end of it. Lets face it, it's not 100 miles from the situation today, except the clubs wait around for their senior players to come back to them whenever the county manager and county board deign to do so.

[orangeman]

That is a fair point roney, and I think you are spot on. See my previous post. However, this is the target whether Sky are involved or not. The commercial model in the GAA is very much about increasing exposure to multiple sponsors to both mitigate any sponsor leaving (all the eggs in one basket) and to increase revenue in total by having more sponsors paying a bit less each.

You are right that a sponsor wants maximum exposure and they will not want to hear about an intercounty season shortening or with less games. If anything, I suspect they'd like a championship that went on for 6 or 7 months.

The question, which is a fundemental one, before us as an Organisation is:

a) Do we want to maximise the revenue accrued, and use the monies gathered to reinvest in our grassroots (clubs, facilities) as well as county teams

OR

b) Do we want to maximise the importance of the club game in the calendar, potentially eliminating some of that funding.


I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

AZ. Who is "we' ?. There are competing interests now. When you say that a large portion of funds would be distributed to clubs, I assume you're talking about funds being distributed indirectly in the form of coaching etc without cheques being written to individual units ?.

We are the GAA. It is a democratic organisation, in theory, which has channels for any and all viewpoints to be aired and passed at various units all the way up to Congress. Competing interests in a democratic organisation is not a new concept, but the idea is that which ever 'interest' has the most support carries the day. The GAA consititution is set up in such a way that it requires a 2/3 majority to do so in most cases.

When I say, in my scenario, that a large proportion of funds may be allocated for club development from inter county games, I'm talking about in the same manner it is now. Grants for infrastructure, coaching and the provision of coaches. But that while the county game contributes to this, the clubs are left to their own devices in individual counties in terms of running their competitions and they do not have access to their county players.

If the GAA is democratic, how come when the top table want something passed, it gets passed. But when clubs go to county conventions the county secretary and the top table brow beat us into convincing us that a motion is out of order, goes against the existing bye laws, or will be brought to the first County Management for discussion or if they're really beat will say that they'll accept it as a recommendation and it's never heard from again.
Then there's the Annual Congress where only those motions that the top tables want on the Clar actually end up as motions for discussions. Same thing then happens. Only those that the top brass want passed get passed and the rest are kicked for touch.

This isn't democracy. Far from it. We are not the GAA. That day is long gone. The top table make the rules and take the decisions. The Sky / Sun deals etc etc prove this. None of us knew these discussions were even taking place.

As Roney rightly says, the executives in the GAA in HQ are very good at what they do. But he makes a good point. At what point does enough become enough ?.

[roney]

I'm going to agree with you on some points, and not others

On promoting the GAA overseas, I have to say I see nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If the aim is to spread the community ethos and enjoyment of our games, then I'm all for that. If the aim is to spread it, SIMPLY to open up commercial avenues, then yes I think that's less noble. I lived in Arizona for 4 years, hence the name. I played football with a club in San Diego, and I've started a club in Phoenix. I've seen both clubs struggle for numbers and games, so anything that gives more exposure would help them, and I would be in favour of it, *as long as it does not hurt clubs at home* but I see no reason why it should or would.

I do agree that the GAA should not be about making the most money it can, it should ALWAYS be secondary to the welfare of its players, and its games. However, we would be foolish not to understand that a well run commercial arm could maximise the money so that it can be spent in helping our players and our clubs in the form of coaching, facilities and other benefits. We can't run our games without money, we can't improve our clubs and players experience without money, but we can't let money run the game.

Can't disagree with any of that. I do feel the overseas card has been overplayed though and the cynic in me links it to this global commercial strategy for a piece of the big pie.

I know only too well that nothing is possible without a well run financial operation but the bottom line is that it must be done with our core principles intact. Otherwise we become the FAI.

[AZOffaly]

That is a fair point roney, and I think you are spot on. See my previous post. However, this is the target whether Sky are involved or not. The commercial model in the GAA is very much about increasing exposure to multiple sponsors to both mitigate any sponsor leaving (all the eggs in one basket) and to increase revenue in total by having more sponsors paying a bit less each.

You are right that a sponsor wants maximum exposure and they will not want to hear about an intercounty season shortening or with less games. If anything, I suspect they'd like a championship that went on for 6 or 7 months.

The question, which is a fundemental one, before us as an Organisation is:

a) Do we want to maximise the revenue accrued, and use the monies gathered to reinvest in our grassroots (clubs, facilities) as well as county teams

OR

b) Do we want to maximise the importance of the club game in the calendar, potentially eliminating some of that funding.


I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

AZ. Who is "we' ?. There are competing interests now. When you say that a large portion of funds would be distributed to clubs, I assume you're talking about funds being distributed indirectly in the form of coaching etc without cheques being written to individual units ?.

We are the GAA. It is a democratic organisation, in theory, which has channels for any and all viewpoints to be aired and passed at various units all the way up to Congress. Competing interests in a democratic organisation is not a new concept, but the idea is that which ever 'interest' has the most support carries the day. The GAA consititution is set up in such a way that it requires a 2/3 majority to do so in most cases.

When I say, in my scenario, that a large proportion of funds may be allocated for club development from inter county games, I'm talking about in the same manner it is now. Grants for infrastructure, coaching and the provision of coaches. But that while the county game contributes to this, the clubs are left to their own devices in individual counties in terms of running their competitions and they do not have access to their county players.

If the GAA is democratic, how come when the top table want something passed, it gets passed. But when clubs go to county conventions the county secretary and the top table brow beat us into convincing us that a motion is out of order, goes against the existing bye laws, or will be brought to the first County Management for discussion or if they're really beat will say that they'll accept it as a recommendation and it's never heard from again.
Then there's the Annual Congress where only those motions that the top tables want on the Clar actually end up as motions for discussions. Same thing then happens. Only those that the top brass want passed get passed and the rest are kicked for touch.

This isn't democracy. Far from it. We are not the GAA. That day is long gone. The top table make the rules and take the decisions. The Sky / Sun deals etc etc prove this. None of us knew these discussions were even taking place.

As Roney rightly says, the executives in the GAA in HQ are very good at what they do. But he makes a good point. At what point does enough become enough ?.

Nonsense. The Top Brass get one vote, same as everyone else. If they are good at lobbying, then that's also democracy. Like it or not. It sounds like you just want people who agree with you. Sure Jaysus if we took a vote here, it would be interesting to see what would happen on any one subject. There is a majority in the GAA now who are anxious to move things in a certain direction. If we don't like that, it's up to us to vote for a more conservative president etc.

At the end of the day, your convention delegate is voting to represent the majority view of his county board. If he is doing that, and you happen to be in the minority view, then I'm afraid that's the way she goes. If he is NOT doing that, as was the case in a couple of votes in the past, then he should be railroaded out.

You may not like the direction taken, but I'd say in general the majority views have been carried in most of these contentious decisions. Black Card, Rule 21, Opening Croke Park, etc etc.

I realise that this particular deal was not subject to a vote at congress, and maybe it should have been, but I'm sure the principle of a committee given the right to negotiate such deals WAS approved at some point in the past. If not, and the majority view is that this is a bad development, then there is a vehicle there to have it blocked after 2017, via a motion at Congress.

[orangeman]

I'm going to agree with you on some points, and not others

On promoting the GAA overseas, I have to say I see nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If the aim is to spread the community ethos and enjoyment of our games, then I'm all for that. If the aim is to spread it, SIMPLY to open up commercial avenues, then yes I think that's less noble. I lived in Arizona for 4 years, hence the name. I played football with a club in San Diego, and I've started a club in Phoenix. I've seen both clubs struggle for numbers and games, so anything that gives more exposure would help them, and I would be in favour of it, *as long as it does not hurt clubs at home* but I see no reason why it should or would.

I do agree that the GAA should not be about making the most money it can, it should ALWAYS be secondary to the welfare of its players, and its games. However, we would be foolish not to understand that a well run commercial arm could maximise the money so that it can be spent in helping our players and our clubs in the form of coaching, facilities and other benefits. We can't run our games without money, we can't improve our clubs and players experience without money, but we can't let money run the game.

Can't disagree with any of that. I do feel the overseas card has been overplayed though and the cynic in me links it to this global commercial strategy for a piece of the big pie.

I know only too well that nothing is possible without a well run financial operation but the bottom line is that it must be done with our core principles intact. Otherwise we become the FAI.

FAI are flying high. Big money coming in. All is well. Things were never as good.

[AZOffaly]

I'm going to agree with you on some points, and not others

On promoting the GAA overseas, I have to say I see nothing wrong with that in and of itself. If the aim is to spread the community ethos and enjoyment of our games, then I'm all for that. If the aim is to spread it, SIMPLY to open up commercial avenues, then yes I think that's less noble. I lived in Arizona for 4 years, hence the name. I played football with a club in San Diego, and I've started a club in Phoenix. I've seen both clubs struggle for numbers and games, so anything that gives more exposure would help them, and I would be in favour of it, *as long as it does not hurt clubs at home* but I see no reason why it should or would.

I do agree that the GAA should not be about making the most money it can, it should ALWAYS be secondary to the welfare of its players, and its games. However, we would be foolish not to understand that a well run commercial arm could maximise the money so that it can be spent in helping our players and our clubs in the form of coaching, facilities and other benefits. We can't run our games without money, we can't improve our clubs and players experience without money, but we can't let money run the game.

Can't disagree with any of that. I do feel the overseas card has been overplayed though and the cynic in me links it to this global commercial strategy for a piece of the big pie.

I know only too well that nothing is possible without a well run financial operation but the bottom line is that it must be done with our core principles intact. Otherwise we become the FAI.

FAI are flying high. Big money coming in. All is well. Things were never as good.

If you take a look around the South, you will see that YES, the junior soccer clubs have NEVER had it so good. The senior team might be shite, but you ask anyone down here about facilities and coaching that the soccer clubs are doing, and it is not far behind GAA at all. FAI Summer Camps, Astroturf pitches and a lot of kids and adult teams. They have never had it so good.

[Eamonnca1]

If you are not doing one thing properly then maybe stick at that before moving on to something of much less importance.

"Much less importance"? Why are GAA clubs in Ireland so much more important than the ones whose players travel thousands of miles to get to their games?

[orangeman]

That is a fair point roney, and I think you are spot on. See my previous post. However, this is the target whether Sky are involved or not. The commercial model in the GAA is very much about increasing exposure to multiple sponsors to both mitigate any sponsor leaving (all the eggs in one basket) and to increase revenue in total by having more sponsors paying a bit less each.

You are right that a sponsor wants maximum exposure and they will not want to hear about an intercounty season shortening or with less games. If anything, I suspect they'd like a championship that went on for 6 or 7 months.

The question, which is a fundemental one, before us as an Organisation is:

a) Do we want to maximise the revenue accrued, and use the monies gathered to reinvest in our grassroots (clubs, facilities) as well as county teams

OR

b) Do we want to maximise the importance of the club game in the calendar, potentially eliminating some of that funding.


I have a lingering suspicion that they want to do both, which means we are heading for an official club v county split. That would mean separate calendars and clubs doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without their county players. It would also mean the county game would be the main revenue generator, and a large portion of those funds would be earmarked for distribution to the clubs. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a moot point.

AZ. Who is "we' ?. There are competing interests now. When you say that a large portion of funds would be distributed to clubs, I assume you're talking about funds being distributed indirectly in the form of coaching etc without cheques being written to individual units ?.

We are the GAA. It is a democratic organisation, in theory, which has channels for any and all viewpoints to be aired and passed at various units all the way up to Congress. Competing interests in a democratic organisation is not a new concept, but the idea is that which ever 'interest' has the most support carries the day. The GAA consititution is set up in such a way that it requires a 2/3 majority to do so in most cases.

When I say, in my scenario, that a large proportion of funds may be allocated for club development from inter county games, I'm talking about in the same manner it is now. Grants for infrastructure, coaching and the provision of coaches. But that while the county game contributes to this, the clubs are left to their own devices in individual counties in terms of running their competitions and they do not have access to their county players.

If the GAA is democratic, how come when the top table want something passed, it gets passed. But when clubs go to county conventions the county secretary and the top table brow beat us into convincing us that a motion is out of order, goes against the existing bye laws, or will be brought to the first County Management for discussion or if they're really beat will say that they'll accept it as a recommendation and it's never heard from again.
Then there's the Annual Congress where only those motions that the top tables want on the Clar actually end up as motions for discussions. Same thing then happens. Only those that the top brass want passed get passed and the rest are kicked for touch.

This isn't democracy. Far from it. We are not the GAA. That day is long gone. The top table make the rules and take the decisions. The Sky / Sun deals etc etc prove this. None of us knew these discussions were even taking place.

As Roney rightly says, the executives in the GAA in HQ are very good at what they do. But he makes a good point. At what point does enough become enough ?.

Nonsense. The Top Brass get one vote, same as everyone else. If they are good at lobbying, then that's also democracy. Like it or not. It sounds like you just want people who agree with you. Sure Jaysus if we took a vote here, it would be interesting to see what would happen on any one subject. There is a majority in the GAA now who are anxious to move things in a certain direction. If we don't like that, it's up to us to vote for a more conservative president etc.

At the end of the day, your convention delegate is voting to represent the majority view of his county board. If he is doing that, and you happen to be in the minority view, then I'm afraid that's the way she goes. If he is NOT doing that, as was the case in a couple of votes in the past, then he should be railroaded out.

You may not like the direction taken, but I'd say in general the majority views have been carried in most of these contentious decisions. Black Card, Rule 21, Opening Croke Park, etc etc.

I realise that this particular deal was not subject to a vote at congress, and maybe it should have been, but I'm sure the principle of a committee given the right to negotiate such deals WAS approved at some point in the past. If not, and the majority view is that this is a bad development, then there is a vehicle there to have it blocked after 2017, via a motion at Congress.

Maybe it should have been ?. Of course it should have been. Every significant decision of importance to "our" association taken by the executives should be flagged up and notice given to its membership.
We all know that the Sky deal won't be blocked in 2017 by a motion to Congress.

I made the point earlier - if the GAA were upfront and told us what they intended doing and explained the reasons, then fine. The way decisions of significant importance are simply foisted upon the ordinary member isn't the right way. It's not democratic. To say that licence was given in principle at some other point in time is making excuses. You're starting to sound like one of the top table ! 

( I've deliberately inserted 2 smileys so as not to cause offence ).

[AZOffaly]

Serious question. Do you think that EVERY single decision of any importance needs to go through Congress? If so fair enough, but I disagree with you because I think that would be an absolute quagmire.

Do I think this one should have been debated at Congress? Maybe.

Do I think there is merit in establishing committees, given their terms of reference at congress and letting them make decisions according to their expertise? Absolutely.

Edit. BTW, I'm curious about this comment "We all know that the Sky deal won't be blocked in 2017 by a motion to Congress. ". Why do you think that is the case? If enough people around the country are up in arms about this, then I see no reason why a motion couldn't be brought to congress and if it has support, it will be passed. If you think it won't be blocked because most people will be happy with the deal, then what's the problem?

[orangeman]

Serious question. Do you think that EVERY single decision of any importance needs to go through Congress? If so fair enough, but I disagree with you because I think that would be an absolute quagmire.

Do I think this one should have been debated at Congress? Maybe.

Do I think there is merit in establishing committees, given their terms of reference at congress and letting them make decisions according to their expertise? Absolutely.

I did say in my previous post that decisions of significant importance to the association should be given the blessing of Congress. Ok we might argue later ( as I already have ) that Congress only pass what they want to but at least it would shut boys like me up.

What I do know and you have touched on it in your most recent post, is that there is a better way.

I've a bee in my bonnet about this as I see the GAA at HQ level  ( a bit like the church ) thinking that it can plough on, take us for granted, and put the head down and take decisions that they think are in our best interests without even canvassing opinion before hand. I don't want this great association which we love to fall apart through apathy etc as we get pissed off that it seems like we no longer have a say in the decisions they make. I know and appreciate that the top brass have one vote, the same as the next man but in practice we know that's not the case.

So a bit more communication and a smidgeen of honesty and transparency would give people like me less to complain about.