Ballinderry Shamrocks in favour of players grants

[Lar Naparka]

Harking back to a point made earlier by cornafean, the entire controversy is linked to an EU directive that was issued about 10 years ago.
I'm a bit hazy on the details now but it involved the Belgian Govt. being sued by a member of a judo team. The athlete in question won his case and that's where it all began. The Irish Govt. is not paying anything out because it wants to but because it legally has to.
(BTW, I'm not giving personal opinions here – the rest of what I have to say is very much on public record.)
It was decided to not only pay grants to athletes and sports people but to all those who could be said to provide a public service in their communities.
How do I know this?
I was very involved in INTO (Irish National Teachers Organisation) matters at the time. Out of the blue, Dept of Ed negotiators told all teachers' union officials that it was proposed that all teachers, who did lunchtime supervision, would be paid in future.
Needless to say, there was no opposition to that!
The monies are being paid out now and this has been the case for the last 7 or 8 years.
The various boards of management decide how the money is to be shared around in every school and send the returns in to the Dept of Ed.
This is the important part.
The grants are added on to each teacher's salary and therefore can be taxed at the going rate. In short, it means there is public accountability for any funds involved.
This applies to professional sports people as well.
This is where the GAA enters the picture.
McCreevy was then Minister for Finance and he refused to include GAA players in the divvy out as their amateur status meant the Dept. of Finance couldn't keep track of monies from the public purse being handed out to the players involved. Soccer and rugby players were included from the start as the Dept. could track those monies through their taxable income but the GAA people were initially debarred.
All hell broke out, with Dessie Farrell and his GPA taking on first McCreevy and then the focus shifted to John O'Donoghue, the Minister for Sport. Under threat of another EU lawsuit, O'Donoghue reluctantly agreed in principle to the GPA's demands and then it was a case of figuring out how Finance could get around its legal obligations to publicly account for money it hands out and the GPA/GAA could arrange this without infringing on the amateur status of the association.
The present controversy is all about this deal.
I don't recall the GAA authorities being actively involved until the deal was done and dusted. I may be wrong but the running was left entirely to Farrell and friends throughout the negotiations with the Govt. side.
All the above is very much on record so don't shoot me as I am only the messenger!
But what I do say is this; don't worry too much about the expenses for mileage or the likes. All this is only a smokescreen to allow the Govt. to fulfill its legal obligations and to allow players get their hands on their money without running foul of GAA rules.

[heganboy]

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.

Hound,
I am glad that the GAA have received a written opinion, however its only an opinion. A few of those "experts" who have the opposite opinion, and would be similarly (if not more) qualified happen to think that EU precedent leans the other way, and think that if pushed that this could go down a long, wind and very expensive road to Bruxelles. All this will take is some player deciding that his freedom of movement of labour is being impinged by the GAA's rule book preventing transfers.

Its certainly not something I'd ever like to see happen. I wasn't content with the whole brown paper bag game that had been happening over the last ten years, and I would have liked to have seen the GAA come in and address the matter rather than Dessie Farrell's organisation, (possibly the biggest amateur in the GAA) step in with an ill thought out grant scheme.

Fair compensation is definitely a matter of opinion, there's very few county players (and club players for that matter) that weren't entitled to fair expenses incurred by playing and training, but what is routinely asked for and received by county players has far surpassed any sense of fairness. The cars, the jobs, the envelopes, the "loans", the deposits and the houses have been whispered about for far too long and its a pity that our GAA didn't have the sense to handle their own business themselves.

For too long the issues of player welfare has gone without due care. The rule book is in major need of a rewrite and the idiots are running the asylum in clubs and counties up and down the country. The Gaelic games we love are beautiful games, what we need is an organisation that lives up to its games and doesn't let down its players and fans as often as the GAA.

[Rossfan]

3. , what we need is an organisation that lives up to its games

Which is why you will be standing for various officerships in the Association next Winter?

[ONeill]

But what I do say is this; don't worry too much about the expenses for mileage or the likes. All this is only a smokescreen to allow the Govt. to fulfill its legal obligations and to allow players get their hands on their money without running foul of GAA rules.

100%. Find it amazing that some high profile anti-grant personalities have now near-accepted what is on offer now, even though nowt has changed. At the end of the summer, the same players will have received the same amount.

I get the impression ofonebelief realised mid-campaign that they were ultimately going to lose and have changed their goalposts. Very like the DUP/First Friday scenario.

[Uladh]

Grants? What grants?

[orangeman]

They're called "refunds" now ! 

[Hardy]

I thought they were "expenses".

I have to admit that this coalition of master obfuscators - the GAA administration, the GPA and the Department of Finance - have run ragged rings of incomprehension around my ability to interpret where we stand now. I can even accommodate an interpretation that sees the GAA having completely outwitted the GPA, extracted a commitment (however enforceable) never to look for pay for play, scotched the idea of grants (pay for play) by turning the payments into reimbursement of legitimate expenses (which the players were receiving anyway) and got the government to pay for it!

If this is how it turns out (i.e. players receiving only legitimate expenses, that they were already receiving anyway, but now paid for by the government) it could be a brilliant stroke or it could be a happy outcome arrived at by shambolic blundering, for all I know.

[Uladh]

Hardy, surely expenses can't only be regarded as legitimate if the player was aleady receiving them? they're either legitimate or they're not?

By the way, i'm sure the gpa will have signed off on every word of that proposal and even what exactly it means in terms of who gets what.

[believebelive]

I don't recall the GAA authorities being actively involved until the deal was done and dusted. I may be wrong but the running was left entirely to Farrell and friends throughout the negotiations with the Govt. side.

The GAA have been involved for two years. They signed up and published an agreement with the GPA last April. Infact this agreement was albout expenses too and not grants.

These expenses are on top of the expenses which are already recieved by the players from the county boards. This won't save county boards one cent.

[Lar Naparka]

"The GAA have been involved for two years. They signed up and published an agreement with the GPA last April. Infact this agreement was albout expenses too and not grants."

You are right of course. This whole process of negotiation did not happen without the knowledge of the GAA, but the running was done by the GPA.
That's what I meant by "active involvement."
My memory is a little hazy but I think that agreement was signed after the threat of an immediate players' strike was lifted. (95% + in favour, as I recall.)
The fact that it was all about expenses and not grants is not at all surprising. It had to be presented in some form that would not contravene the amateur status of the Association.
However, if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck and lays eggs like a duck, then it is a duck!
Government money is going to be paid out to GAA players who met the essential criteria because they are legally entitled to it and applied for it.
The GAA top brass certainly facilitated the negotiations because they had no real choice in the matter- another law case to Europe would have seen to that.
Where I do have a personal opinion is in the manner in which the negotiations were carried out by a section within our Association and not by the Association itself. I too have concerns that this new initiative will cause problems down the line but it is a legal arrangement and both the Govt. and the GAA will abide by its terms.
Were other sections of the Association adequately briefed by HQ as the deal was being hammered out?
I don't think so; the Mayo County Board grabbed headlines by coming out 100% against the deal. I think that was the case also in Roscommon. Maybe the same happened elsewhere also.
But they were all wasting their breath.
I am in total agreement with O'Neill where Of One Belief is concerned.
They seem to have copped on that taking a law case to the EU, when the same EU issued the very directive that legalised the deal in the first place, might be a costly waste of time.

[Rossfan]

[ithe Mayo County Board grabbed headlines by coming out 100% against the deal. I think that was the case also in Roscommon.

Ros Co Board Meeting a couple of weeks ago voted in favour. Concern was expressed by one delegate that the antis seemed to be all Northern based.

[believebelive]

You are right of course. This whole process of negotiation did not happen without the knowledge of the GAA, but the running was done by the GPA.
That's what I meant by "active involvement."
My memory is a little hazy but I think that agreement was signed after the threat of an immediate players' strike was lifted. (95% + in favour, as I recall.)

The GAA were actively involved. Last April they and the GPA ceated a document and presented it to the government - both the GPA and the GAA together negotiated with the government. And that agreement was signed long before strike was ever talked about. The government rejected the first agreement and after months of no further action the GPA threatened strike. Then came the second document which was between the GPA/GAA/Sports Council and Government.

It annoys me journalists spout shite that the GAA were never involved until the latter stages.

And only 73% of inter county players bothered to vote - the other 27 must have not been that annoyed

[cornafean]

I am in total agreement with O'Neill where Of One Belief is concerned.
They seem to have copped on that taking a law case to the EU, when the same EU issued the very directive that legalised the deal in the first place, might be a costly waste of time.

This is a bizarre assertion. OfOneBelief.org never threatened to take a law case to the EU. Neither did they or anyone else contend that the original 8/12/07 grants deal was in contravention of EU law.

They did point out that the 8/12/07 deal had legal implications for the GAA arising from previous EU legal precedents.

The abandonment of the 8/12/07 deal in favour of the new expenses-based arrangement seems to justify their contention.

[Hound]

The Irish Govt. is not paying anything out because it wants to but because it legally has to.
It was decided to not only pay grants to athletes and sports people but to all those who could be said to provide a public service in their communities.
McCreevy was then Minister for Finance and he refused to include GAA players in the divvy out as their amateur status meant the Dept. of Finance couldn't keep track of monies from the public purse being handed out to the players involved. Soccer and rugby players were included from the start as the Dept. could track those monies through their taxable income but the GAA people were initially debarred.
All hell broke out, with Dessie Farrell and his GPA taking on first McCreevy and then the focus shifted to John O'Donoghue, the Minister for Sport. Under threat of another EU lawsuit, O'Donoghue reluctantly agreed in principle to the GPA's demands and then it was a case of figuring out how Finance could get around its legal obligations to publicly account for money it hands out and the GPA/GAA could arrange this without infringing on the amateur status of the association.
The present controversy is all about this deal.
I don't recall the GAA authorities being actively involved until the deal was done and dusted. I may be wrong but the running was left entirely to Farrell and friends throughout the negotiations with the Govt. side.
All the above is very much on record so don't shoot me as I am only the messenger!
But what I do say is this; don't worry too much about the expenses for mileage or the likes. All this is only a smokescreen to allow the Govt. to fulfill its legal obligations and to allow players get their hands on their money without running foul of GAA rules.

What a load of nonsense!! 
Bizarre that you could get so much mixed up, befuddled and downright wrong in a couple of sentences...

[Lar Naparka]

Fair play Hound! You certainly put it plain and direct!
However, you have omitted something. (Actually, a whole load of things.)
Nothing in your summing up indicates where I am speaking "a load of nonsense!"

I stated at the outset that your "load of nonsense" wasn't necessarily my personal opinion but it's there on the public record- something you may check out for yourself.
Actually, I'd go a good deal along the road with OOB- if the reaction had come before the deal was done and dusted.
I have used the websites of the parties involved and my recollections of reports in various newspapers and I didn't rely on my own dodgy memory for that either. I did take the trouble to go check my memory with a handful of concerned colleagues.
I've no problem giving you the URLs of the articles on the various websites I did refer to. As for my buddies, they have decided that it's time I got a life and stopped going on about what is signed, sealed and shortly will be delivered! I really intend to follow their advice.

"The GAA were actively involved. Last April they and the GPA ceated a document and presented it to the government - both the GPA and the GAA together negotiated with the government. And that agreement was signed long before strike was ever talked about. The government rejected the first agreement and after months of no further action the GPA threatened strike. Then came the second document which was between the GPA/GAA/Sports Council and Government."

That's what believebelieve wrote and I find nothing wrong with it. It certainly appears to have been the case.

However, if anyone cares to check the sequence of event before and after what's gone above a different slant on proceedings could be taken.
The GPA holds an EGM, following which a list of demands is issued to the GAA, including a demand for official recognition. On April 24, 2007 GPA issues a press release saying progress has been made and Paraic Duffy has been appointed by the GAA to liaise with them. They give fulsome praise to Mr Duffy and point out that he has had numerous meetings with them. The following day they issue another release saying joint negotiations had begun.
So far, so good and all are singing from the same hymn sheet!
Yet by 9 November they issued yet another release giving the results of the postal ballot they had held, threatening all out strike. The ballot took a long time to organise, compounded by the postal strike in the North, and in the circumstances a postal return of 71.6% could be considered satisfactory.

Now, who was their anger directed against, the Govt. or the GAA?

That release goes on to state that GPA officers are currently engaging in talks with the Govt. and the GAA to resolve the impasse over the grants. (Hmmm...seems to be that they're now talking at the GAA and no longer with them. Where has the united approach gone?)
In any event, unity is rapidly restored in face of the strike threat and by 7 December Nickey Brennan is able to announce a satisfactory conclusion to the (first) agreement. However, he goes on to add that the GAA had no role or commitment in terms of the financing of the Awards or guaranteeing their scale or continuity.
It seems to me that he is saying here that the GAA has no further role to play in the implementation of the scheme, either now or in future. The game is now between the GPA and the Govt.
A quick peek at the OOB website kinda confirms my own suspicions,. They include quotes on the matter from all the Presidential candidates. All express grave reservations. Sean Fogarty is quoted saying, "At the outset we should never have entered discussions on it."
Is it a load of rubbish to say that the opinions of the four Presidential candidates can't be taken as reflecting the thinking of the GAA hierarchy? Especially when the current President washes his hands of future involvement in the deal that's being implemented?
One last (really last) point concerns the OOB. Fair enough they may never have contemplated taking a case to Europe - but plenty of media reports suggest otherwise and the GAA press release of last week did mention a senior legal expert confirming that the deal in no way breached EU directives. I certainly think the reference here was to the deal in general and not to the GAA's own possibility of being legally compromised in any way.
Hound, you're a gas man.