Grants case to be reconvened at DRA

[quidnunc]

From Hoganstand


Anti-grants group heads back to DRA
20 February 2008

The Of One Belief group has gone back to the Dispute Resolution Authority with its claim that Central Council has acted, and continues to act illegally on the grants issue.

The group of members from across the GAA opposes the breaking of the GAA's Rule 11 that the payment of cash "grants" to inter-county players would entail. They went to the DRA back in January and have now taken up the offer the DRA then made of a reconvening of its hearing.

The re-convening is sought on the basis that the motion passed by Central Council last Saturday is out of order and the Council has caused a breach of trust according to the Of One Belief group.

"When we got an adjournment at the initial hearing of the DRA case," said Joe O'Brien from Longford, "it was on the basis that Central Council's solicitors claimed that no decision had been made on grants. Central Council also undertook to bring any future proposals properly to Congress. We accepted all this in good faith but now find that, along with the DRA and the rest of the GAA, we have been misled on both points. The press-release from Saturday's Central Council meeting referred to its 'previous decisions' on this issue. Three weeks ago we were all assured there were no such decisions. And in the GAA if you take things to Congress, you take them there in the right way, according to the Rules. You don't make it up to suit yourself as you go along. On Saturday our Central Council agreed to put a motion to Congress that is clearly out of order."

"It's time people were properly tested on this and this constant misleading was ended. The DRA - our own proper GAA arbitration system - is the means to do that."

The group believe that the Central Council motion is out of order because Rule 85 (b) says that if Central Council wants to submit a motion to Congress for approval of its interpretation of rules, it must seek to change the Rule accordingly. Any amendment to Rule 11, the amateur status rule, would need to be structured correctly and get a two-thirds majority in order to be passed they claim, but the motion from Saturday's Central Council meeting merely asks Congress to vote that it is "satisfied" with the grants scheme and doesn't seek the necessary change of Rule.

"It's obvious by now that Central Council is trying to sneak this fundamental change through on the nod," said Tyrone's Mark Conway.

"It's wrong that Counties like Fermanagh, which debated this whole issue openly and honestly, have their motion on it ruled out of order yet Central Council puts in a motion its members didn't even debate on an agreement it says isn't yet agreed. Trust has gone out the window in all this and it's just further proof of how the people who want to foist pay-for-play on us won't do their business through the GAA's proper democratic processes and rules.

"Central Council's solicitors' amazing claim at the last DRA hearing that there was no grants agreement or decision was made because they knew that the grants breach Rule 11. Like the rest of us they knew full well that "a Lord Denning-type appalling vista" would result, with Central Council found to be blatantly breaking rules it is meant to enforce.

"The longer this goes on the messier it gets. The people who want to introduce pay-for-play have now had three months when every Club in Ireland and beyond and every GAA member could have been properly consulted on this. They've stubbornly refused to allow that consultation to happen. Why is that? Where have the honesty; integrity; and openness that used to underpin the GAA gone? And as for proper corporate governance, well the smallest Club in the GAA wouldn't be allowed to do its business this way."

People opposed to the grants - and even many who favour them - feel this whole issue needs to be properly debated at all levels in the GAA claim the group, who now say that the debate is not being facilitated.

"It just gets stranger and stranger," said Martin Ryan, Tipperary. "Saturday's Central Council meeting asked that all Counties discuss the suggested re-opening of the Australian Rules connection, but it steadfastly refuses to open up the pay-for-play debate. Even basic legal research shows that if these "grants" are paid then EU commercial law comes into play and overrides any internal GAA rules we might have. The grants will change the GAA irrevocably. Those who care about that won't let it happen. That's why this all is so critical."

[Armagh Exile]

Duffy: GAA amateur status is safe

GAA director general Pauric Duffy has insisted that the revised document on grants to GAA players does not contravene the GAA's Amateur status.
Duffy has been assured that revisions to the draft document ratified by Central Council last December will not change the ethos of the GAA.
"The final document will obviously try to cover all angles," said Duffy.
"Any agreement has to be in compliance with Rule 11, so that obviously covers all legislative issues around that."
Although supportive of the new motion which Central Council will bring to April's Congress in Sligo, the Monaghan native is keen that 'healthy debate' is generated and accepts that there is opposition to the motion.
"I would say that it is disruptive," he said.
"Originally the draft document was prepared, was presented to Central Council back in December.
"It was supported by Central Council and we would have felt that once Central Council accepted it, that it would have been sufficient. Having said that we accept the rights of people to raise (these issues).
"That's what the GAA is about, and that's what Congress is about and anybody is free to put a motion on the agenda for Congress."
However Duffy concedes that should April's Congress not pass the grants motion, it will open up a host of problems for the organisation.
"Clearly if Congress doesn't pass the motion and says that we don't support this scheme, there is clearly a problem.
"Where it would move on from there is not for me to say, but there would be a lot of very unhappy players and that is stating the obvious. However it's not for me to say what will happen from there on."
Duffy has also urged the GPA to shout if they have any problems with the document that will be laid on the Central Council table on 17 March, although he says that they haven't expressed any major reservations just yet.
"The final document obviously won't differ very much from the original one and it's the final version, so therefore it is more definitive in places.
"But clearly it's the final document and if Central Council approved the first one, you would expect them to approve the final version of the same document because essentially it is the same."
According to Mark Conway of the 'Of One Belief' group, who are opposed to the grants, a DRA case is set to take place on 14 March, just three days before the Central Council meeting.
GPA chief executive Dessie Farrell may be asked to attend that meeting.
Duffy believes that county boards are acting prematurely to make a decision before the final document is produced.
"I would be surprised if county boards made a decision on a document that they haven't seen."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/northern_ireland/gaelic_games/7275843.stm

[orangeman]

He clearly supports the grants issue but concedes that they will have to dress it up so that it is not pay for play so as to get around rule 11.

[quidnunc]

We were told that this Duffy man was a safe pair of hands and all the rest, but he seems to be seriously deluded.

He has told us all along that the grants do not breach Rule 11, but what legal evidence has he provided? We're supposed to go against any logical reading of Rule 11 simply because he says so.

Sorry Mr Duffy, no can do.

And as for this statement:

"I would be surprised if county boards made a decision on a document that they haven't seen."

Didn't Central Council make a decision to support a document it hadn't seen, just two weeks ago?

[believebelive]

We were told that this Duffy man was a safe pair of hands and all the rest, but he seems to be seriously deluded.

He has told us all along that the grants do not breach Rule 11, but what legal evidence has he provided? We're supposed to go against any logical reading of Rule 11 simply because he says so.

Sorry Mr Duffy, no can do.

And as for this statement:

"I would be surprised if county boards made a decision on a document that they haven't seen."

Didn't Central Council make a decision to support a document it hadn't seen, just two weeks ago?[/b]

Not only that but he is clearly excluding the clubs from this debate. He does not want county boards to make a decision before they have seen the final document in the middle of march - congress is on the second week in April  - when does he expect clubs to debate this or are they not allowed - is this one only for the grown ups at congress - ah well not to worry - we all know that congress is so in touch with the wishes of the majority of members of the association

[Uladh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/northern_ireland/gaelic_games/7277142.stm

Conway is arguing here that the GPA is not part of the GAA but "one belief" is?

whatever about your opinions on the grants scheme, how can you reconcile that one group of independently bound GAA members is part of the GAA and another similarly formed group is not?

[Uladh]

Who does have a right to atend the meeting? ordinary members of the GAA? members who have an interest? members who mark conway oks?

[DUBSFORSAM1]

Who does have a right to atend the meeting? ordinary members of the GAA? members who have an interest? members who mark conway oks?

Well obviously he doesn't count the county players as members of the GAA.....

Well I wonder why he hasn't been campaigning against other payments when he describes them as a cancer!!!!

[Uladh]

I was hoping to avoid the glib preconceptions.

The question remains that given conway's championing of a GAA of equals, how can he now want to alienate association members on a whim?

why should farrel not attend the meeting?

[tyrone86]

I was hoping to avoid the glib preconceptions.

The question remains that given conway's championing of a GAA of equals, how can he now want to alienate association members on a whim?

why should farrel not attend the meeting?

Alternatively, why should be be allowed? To take another famous DRA case, it would be like John McEntee requesting to go to the DRA meeting involving Ryan McMenamin in 05, just because McEntee was the victim. That was a ruling on a rule, nothing else and as such it has nothing to do directly with Farrell or the GPA.

[Uladh]

In that case, why should mark conway be there?

who should represent the rest of us ordinary GAA folk?

[behind the wire]

i think you will find that a good many ordinary gaa folk are quite happy to let mr conway et all represent them. i for one certainly will.

[rrhf]

add my name to that list.  Farrell seem happier dealing with the governement than the GAA anyhow.  Who the hell does he think he is?

[tyrone86]

In that case, why should mark conway be there?

who should represent the rest of us ordinary GAA folk?

Because it was Mark Conway with a collective of members within the Association asked the question regarding the legalities and subsequently took the case to the DRA. It stands to reason he'd be at the case.

[magpie seanie]

who should represent the rest of us ordinary GAA folk?

The rule book represents "us ordinary GAA folk" and the DRA are the ones charged with adhering to the rules. Anyone within the association is free to bring a case to the DRA if they think they have one. Mr. Farrell can bring a case if he wants but I'm sure he knows the rule book doesn't favour his view point. Hence his and his cohorts attempts to override the system.