Ballinderry Shamrocks in favour of players grants

[Hound]

the grants will ensure that the GAA stays amateur for longer. This document, which the GPA have signed up to, copperfastens it.

There's this lassie I saw a couple of weeks ago that told me on numerous occasions in the past that she loved me and how much she loved me (and I think she genuinely did at the time). She's now married to some English bloke and has two kids with him!

To use the analogy I'd be less than convinced that the GPA's declaration of love for amateurism is honest (I'm sure I'm not the only sceptic on this point).

I've read the document in full and far from being convinced it worries me even more. The lengths that are being gone to by all Central Council to hide the fact that these are payments for playing intercounty football and hurling - something specifically prohibited by rule - is troubling. The lack of a wide ranging debate is also a source of concern. It appears "the grassroots" are only consulted if they're going to come up with the right answer.

I take your point, but I think you're exaggerating it. I don't know why its "troubling" in structuring the payments as expenses. Its the way the GAA have always worked, for instance when paying lads to play International Rules or with the All Stars, its always been done as expenses. The GAA have structured this so that not one player will make a cash profit from playing GAA. Under no interpretation can this construe professionalism.

There has always been and there will always be players who want to get paid for playing football. The number is ever increasing but its still very much a minority. Eventually there will be a majority, but gawd knows when. In my opinion, I am certain that the "grants" pushes that date back. If the grants go through, there will be no more talk from the GPA of pay for play (or anything that people could construe as pay for play) under the current GPA leadership.

[AZOffaly]

Hound, I think this embeds the whole 'bonus' for playing intercounty even further into GAA administration. I genuinely don't have a major problem with the inter county GAA players being recognised as elite athletes, and if the Government or Sports Council wants to give them grants commensurate with the other elite athletes from other disciplines, then fair enough.

I am concerned that the GAA are getting their hands dirty in doling the money out, deciding who gets it etc etc. Not because I begrudge the money, but because I simply cannot see how they are on firm ground for an argument about the validity of these monies when the Goverment decides to pull the plug in a few years time, and because I cannot see how Dessie and the GPA will simply accept this.

In this bad case scenario, I would have hoped that the disbursement, if it were to be done by the GAA, would be so clearly designated as NOT GAA money, or not part of GAA procedures, that they would at least give themselves a solid bullwark if the grant deal itself collapses. At least the GAA could say 'It's not our money, it was never our money, it was clearly marked as not being our money, and it was given out in a clearly seperate structure and mechanism'.

But this document, in my view, has really blurred the lines between the 'normal' expenses that every inter county player is entitled to already claim, and these new 'supplementary' expenses. It will be really hard for an organisation to say 'Well, these expenses were valid, but now they are not', especially if the GPA decide to kick up a row about the expenses being reduced.

The general public and media will focus on the unfairness of it, citing that the scheme is already in situ and the GAA has made X million euro from Croker, TV rights etc etc, so it could easily be continued at the new rates.

Also, with this wordplay, it allows potentially ANY amount of money to be paid as expenses, just like those managers getting €500 a session 'expenses' at the moment, which we all agree is a bad thing. I think that instead of closing off a loophole, they have opened one that even I could run through now, and I'm as slow as a wet week,

Once that particular horse bolts, it ain't coming back for anyone.

[cornafean]

We (the GAA) have made a real mess of this 

I can't help thinking this myself. Neither can I help thinking that Padraig Duffy and Nickey Brennan have been totally outfoxed on this issue by both the GPA on one side and OfOneBelief.org on the other. It seems pretty obvious that the more Duffy, Brennan and their advisors studied the harebrained grants proposal which was outlined on 8 December last, the more they realised that as a "pay for play" scheme it carried serious legal ramifications for the GAA and also stood little chance of being accepted by the grassroots.

The latest version of the scheme is an improvement on the original in that the pay for play monster seems to have been slayed. That said, I think it is seriously flawed on two counts:

Firstly, it is incredibly complicated and involves a lot of bureaucracy for the sake of a marginal topup to players' expense allowances.

Secondly, there must be serious doubt over the tax treatment of the payments under this scheme, by both the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin and HM Inland Revenue in London.

The Revenue authorities on both sides of the border have traditionally taken a dim view of arrangements where expense allowances have been used as a replacement for taxable remuneration, and in the context of what has gone on in this debate over the past 6 months, it is clear that the new scheme proposes this. Its anyone's guess what will happen if/when a player on either side of the border is served with a tax assessment on their receipts from this scheme.

[Hound]

Fair comment AZ, but I do think its pretty clear that it has to be a proper expense, rather than a round sum one. And there is provision for what happens where a player has not incurred (or claimed) their maximum amount.

[believebelive]

2. The GAA will be paying no more than vouched civil service expense rates. They have received confirmation from Revenue that if this is done as intended, there will be no tax liability.

I thought I read the document pretty well - where does it say this Hound?

What i don't understand is this. If these are legitimate expenses why are the GAA not paying for them? And also what expenses can the players claim for? It does not say in the document. Is it going to be car  insurance, internet connection, phone bill - as it was in the first document last April?

At least the discrepancies between the amount players were getting in different counties has been addressed - although the Tommy Murphy Cup finalists will get 25 euro less per week than the round one qualifier loser.

[cornafean]

Pure and utter nonsense to say that this brings it within EU legilsation. Everything will be settled under Irish law.


Only if there is still disagreement, one side, if they wish, can go to the EU courts. But thats the same for everything.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Under EU treaties, EU law takes precedence over domestic law. Btw, once you cross the border, Irish law is irrelevant.

They have received confirmation from Revenue that if this is done as intended, there will be no tax liability.

Has this confirmation been made in writing? Has a similar confirmation been received from HM Inland Revenue? Are these confirmations going to be published, if indeed they exist in the first instance? The Revenue authorities either in the UK or here do not usually provide written assurances that particular schemes or situations are in compliance with tax law. (Remember, Bertie Ahern claimed he had received similar confirmation from the Revenue in relation to his digout, but it turned out later that there was no such confirmation.)
and assuming the Revenue confirmations exist, why is this clause in the deal?

11.4.   Tax liability

The Schemes are intended to reimburse vouched expenses only to the extent that such reimbursement does not give rise to a liability to tax.  However each player shall account to the Revenue Commissioners for any taxation payable in respect of the sums payable to him pursuant to the Schemes and shall make such returns in relation to such payments as are required by law.

3. The GAA have received a written opinion from Senior Counsel that there is no issue with European law. So finally those couple of "experts" who keep going on about EU law meaning the players are now professional, have their answer.

Is this written opinion going to be published as well? Is there a contrary opinion among other senior counsel?

[Uladh]

This is a fairly comprehensive and well thought through document it has to be said. It's now entirely understandable why the GAA wanted everyone to wait until this was published before going down the breakaway route rather than making your case within the association structures.

i take az's fears on board re the scenario where the money is pulled by the government but it seems clear to me that what the gpa has signed up to stipulates very carefully that the minister decides the funds available. therefore any trouble in that deprtment can only be lobbied against in his direction. bear in mind that the gaa vote in this country could very easily remove any public representative from office.

My understanding is that the GAA are assured that this structure (expenses top up) absolutely does not introduce an employment scenario with the players and cannot be contested on that basis under law. also, there will be no revenue issues. it may have escaped people's notice that the government are a major player in this scheme and this approach has been submitted to the revenue for approval. how stupid do people think the government are?

So far there have obviously been reservations expressed but it seems to me that this is from people who are fundamentally against the players getting anything, irrespective of how they get it. Our association has obviously gone to great lengths to find a way to facilitate the government's efforts to recognise the contribution that the intercounty players have made nationally and internationally to our indiginous games. fears about breaching rule 11 were and are genuinely held but it's clear to me that the GAA hierarchy and central council are satisfied that this structure facilitates increased expenses, out of the government;s pocket, without breaking that very important ideal.

Cornafean - you are typical of the begrudging attitude that i despair of within our own embership. for weeks you've been shouting foul against pay for play and that this wil bring the association down around us. now you accept this was wrong but you yu've shofted your goalpost and object rather because: there's too much bureacracy, and an imaginary tax implication for th players (which doesn't affect you in the least).

[cornafean]

Cornafean - you are typical of the begrudging attitude that i despair of within our own membership.

Uladh, play the ball not the man. I have no intention of responding in kind.

[believebelive]

Can I ask a question?

Does this mean that county boards will not be paying traveling expenses for the entire year or just for the championship? Or does it mean that the county board will continue to pay traveling expenses and that these are merely for 'additional expenses'?

[Hound]

2. The GAA will be paying no more than vouched civil service expense rates. They have received confirmation from Revenue that if this is done as intended, there will be no tax liability.

I thought I read the document pretty well - where does it say this Hound?

What i don't understand is this. If these are legitimate expenses why are the GAA not paying for them? And also what expenses can the players claim for? It does not say in the document. Is it going to be car  insurance, internet connection, phone bill - as it was in the first document last April?

At least the discrepancies between the amount players were getting in different counties has been addressed - although the Tommy Murphy Cup finalists will get 25 euro less per week than the round one qualifier loser.

Paraic Duffy said it yesterday about Revenue. The GAA currently pay less than civil service rates, so there is room for paying more without incurring the wrath of Revenue. The mileage rate is supposed to cover all costs, i.e. petrol, insurance, motor tax, depreciation - so you can't claim mileage, and then claim insurance.

Expenses for those without a car is a bit more tricky. Duffy said they are currently in discussions with Revenue regarding what expenses can be reimbursed without incurring a tax liability.

[Uladh]

cornafean - i am responding directly to the content of your post, which undeniably reflects upon yourself.

you posted

The latest version of the scheme is an improvement on the original in that the pay for play monster seems to have been slayed. That said, I think it is seriously flawed on two counts:

Firstly, it is incredibly complicated and involves a lot of bureaucracy for the sake of a marginal topup to players' expense allowances.

Secondly, there must be serious doubt over the tax treatment of the payments under this scheme, by both the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin and HM Inland Revenue in London.

what is inappropriate about deducing as i did:

Cornafean - you are typical of the begrudging attitude that i despair of within our own embership. for weeks you've been shouting foul against pay for play and that this wil bring the association down around us. now you accept this was wrong but you yu've shofted your goalpost and object rather because: there's too much bureacracy, and an imaginary tax implication for th players (which doesn't affect you in the least).

If do not want to be accountable for your posts then don't post.

[Hound]

Pure and utter nonsense to say that this brings it within EU legilsation. Everything will be settled under Irish law.


Only if there is still disagreement, one side, if they wish, can go to the EU courts. But thats the same for everything.

I think you are contradicting yourself here. Under EU treaties, EU law takes precedence over domestic law. Btw, once you cross the border, Irish law is irrelevant.

Has this confirmation been made in writing? Has a similar confirmation been received from HM Inland Revenue? Are these confirmations going to be published, if indeed they exist in the first instance? The Revenue authorities either in the UK or here do not usually provide written assurances that particular schemes or situations are in compliance with tax law. (Remember, Bertie Ahern claimed he had received similar confirmation from the Revenue in relation to his digout, but it turned out later that there was no such confirmation.)
and assuming the Revenue confirmations exist, why is this clause in the deal?

Revenue on both sides of the border regularly give written confirmations as to tax treatment of certain items.

The clause remains, as it would in any commercial case, in case there is a change in tax law or expenses outside the scope of what Revenue agreed are paid.

[cornafean]

Paraic Duffy said it yesterday about Revenue. The GAA currently pay less than civil service rates, so there is room for paying more without incurring the wrath of Revenue. The mileage rate is supposed to cover all costs, i.e. petrol, insurance, motor tax, depreciation - so you can't claim mileage, and then claim insurance.

Expenses for those without a car is a bit more tricky. Duffy said they are currently in discussions with Revenue regarding what expenses can be reimbursed without incurring a tax liability.

Current Civil Service rates are as follows:

Up to 6,437km -  52.16 -  78.32 cent per km
Over 6,438km   - 26.97  - 36.65 cent per km
(source Revenue.ie IT51)

They are quite generous for the first 6,437km or 4,000 miles but a lot less so thereafter. Which could mean problems for any players already travelling more than 4,000 miles per year on GAA travel;, and receiving the standard  county board mileage for doing so.

They also DON'T apply:
- where the person has use of a company car or van from their employer
- to travel to and from home
"Where an employee proceeds on a business journey directly from home to a temporary
place of work (rather than commencing that business journey from his/her normal
place of work) or returns home directly, the business kilometres should be calculated by
reference to the lesser of -
- The distance between home and the temporary place of work or
- The distance between the normal place of work and the temporary place of work."

[cornafean]

cornafean - i am responding directly to the content of your post, which undeniably reflects upon yourself.

you posted

The latest version of the scheme is an improvement on the original in that the pay for play monster seems to have been slayed. That said, I think it is seriously flawed on two counts:

Firstly, it is incredibly complicated and involves a lot of bureaucracy for the sake of a marginal topup to players' expense allowances.

Secondly, there must be serious doubt over the tax treatment of the payments under this scheme, by both the Revenue Commissioners in Dublin and HM Inland Revenue in London.

what is inappropriate about deducing as i did:

Cornafean - you are typical of the begrudging attitude that i despair of within our own embership. for weeks you've been shouting foul against pay for play and that this wil bring the association down around us. now you accept this was wrong but you yu've shofted your goalpost and object rather because: there's too much bureacracy, and an imaginary tax implication for th players (which doesn't affect you in the least).

If do not want to be accountable for your posts then don't post.

As I said I have no intention of responding to you.

[Uladh]

Of course not. You can't stand over the nonsense you post...