This is taken from the 'Of One Belief' sounding board and is posted for those who do not subscribe to the circular or visit http://www.ofonebelief.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many, many reasons why we shouldn't touch the grants/awards/pay-for-play scheme with a barge pole. Here's twenty to start with:
* It flies in the face of our Rule 11 which clearly states that "a player, team, official or member shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of gaelic games". As such it represents an attempt at the most fundamental shift ever in GAA ethos and policy. And it shifts the entire focus within the GAA from "We" to "Me".
* It is a policy which, if introduced, will never be reversed: once the principle of paying players is introduced, experience in every other sport in every other setting shows that the only issue for debate thereafter is: "How much more?"
* The GAA is about giving, not taking. The GAA gives the money it earns back to the people of Ireland in the form of facilities; coaching; games development; and equipment. Only by retaining our amateur status can we ensure this reinvestment continues, generation after generation.
* Playing for your County is a choice, not an obligation. Always, always, always in the GAA you do what you do because you want to. If you don't want to ... then don't do it. That brilliantly simple concept has served us so well for 124 years. This proposed arrangement totally undermines that understanding.
* Paying this money establishes a dangerous precedent. The GAA will have to pick up the tab when the government, as it inevitably will, drops out
* Inflation and claimed "increased-costs-of-playing-gaelic-games" will have to be factored in
* There is no moral argument for not paying the same money to the inter-County back-room people who put in the same time and effort. Counties will have to come up with the money and the arrangements to do this.
* Once we start paying back-room teams, there is no moral argument in turn for not paying other County Committee people: they put in as much (if not more) time and effort and without them there would be no County GAA to start with.
* It is not at all clear who carries the legal liabilities (of which there will be many) in all this. The first case for "wrongful dismissal" or whatever from a County panel is inevitably on its way.
* The "Bosman" and other EU rulings mean once money becomes involved and "restraint of trade" issues invariably follow, the GAA won't have a legal leg to stand on in terms of stopping players transferring to Counties where their financial prospects are better
* There will be a financial incentive regime in place in the GAA which discourages elite players from putting themselves at risk in Club games
* There'll be no incentive or justification to address the current poison of paid managers in the GAA ... which should be an absolute priority for the GAA
* Some players will inevitably object because they have to play more matches than players from other Counties to reach the Championship Quarter-Finals and be awarded the money that comes with that. This will fatally undermine the structure of our Championships.
* The first headline as follows is already on its way: "That refereeing decision cost us 'so-many-thousand' euros"
* We will have a scenario where County A's players get the money on the basis of attending 80% of, say, 100 sessions whilst County B's players will get it on the basis of attending 80% of, say, 50 sessions
* The scheme seriously expects people with full-time jobs to "visit schools and youth facilities" as part of their new "GAA contractual arrangements". The costs of those school and other visits will have to be picked up by someone: that someone will be the Counties.
* The GPA has already claimed players should be entitled to a share of TV money ("HQ Warned to Share TV Money Around", Setanta, 23 October 2007). The GAA will have no moral (let alone legal) justification for opposing such a future GPA claim ... paid directly to them of course by a third party, the TV company. (No doubt it will be backed up by the threat of strike action - which in the new pay-for-play context it will actually be a strike)
* The rest of the GAA is still expected to fundraise to provide elite facilities when the users of those facilities are going to have to be paid to use them
* The new contractual requirements placed on players are the diametric opposite to the supposed concern with over-burdening players ... and on which we recently held a Special Congress
* The GAA will be morally and legally unable to oppose a sponsor who offers a County panel a large, performance-based, sum of money to win a title
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Misé Le Méas.
I think we've had this debate on here about 15 times at this stage, and most of those arguments were used by the 'anti' camp. I don't think we need to get into it all again.
I agree with a lot of them, but as I said, we've been there and talked this to death.
Quote from: GrandMasterFlash on February 13, 2008, 08:27:55 AM
This is taken from the 'Of One Belief' sounding board and is posted for those who do not subscribe to the circular or visit http://www.ofonebelief.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many, many reasons why we shouldn't touch the grants/awards/pay-for-play scheme with a barge pole. Here's twenty to start with:
* It flies in the face of our Rule 11 which clearly states that "a player, team, official or member shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of gaelic games". As such it represents an attempt at the most fundamental shift ever in GAA ethos and policy. And it shifts the entire focus within the GAA from "We" to "Me".
The GAA ignores plenty of its own rules and basic principals so why should this be any different ?
* It is a policy which, if introduced, will never be reversed: once the principle of paying players is introduced, experience in every other sport in every other setting shows that the only issue for debate thereafter is: "How much more?"
Who cares let the government worry about that,of course grants will increase over time 5 k now won't be the same in 60 years
* The GAA is about giving, not taking. The GAA gives the money it earns back to the people of Ireland in the form of facilities; coaching; games development; and equipment. Only by retaining our amateur status can we ensure this reinvestment continues, generation after generation.
Coaches it pays , GAA isnt spending it money on grants , so no worries there then
* Playing for your County is a choice, not an obligation. Always, always, always in the GAA you do what you do because you want to. If you don't want to ... then don't do it. That brilliantly simple concept has served us so well for 124 years. This proposed arrangement totally undermines that understanding.
The GAA play people who admittedly do fill time jobs maybe they should walk away
* Paying this money establishes a dangerous precedent. The GAA will have to pick up the tab when the government, as it inevitably will, drops out
* Inflation and claimed "increased-costs-of-playing-gaelic-games" will have to be factored in
::)
* There is no moral argument for not paying the same money to the inter-County back-room people who put in the same time and effort. Counties will have to come up with the money and the arrangements to do this.
Moral argument , this inst cloning we are talking about
* Once we start paying back-room teams, there is no moral argument in turn for not paying other County Committee people: they put in as much (if not more) time and effort and without them there would be no County GAA to start with.
Moral argument , this inst cloning we are talking about
* It is not at all clear who carries the legal liabilities (of which there will be many) in all this. The first case for "wrongful dismissal" or whatever from a County panel is inevitably on its way.
The sports council of Ireland and issuing them and have been for years , cant recall them being sued to date
* The "Bosman" and other EU rulings mean once money becomes involved and "restraint of trade" issues invariably follow, the GAA won't have a legal leg to stand on in terms of stopping players transferring to Counties where their financial prospects are better
No grants are not effected these rulings
* There will be a financial incentive regime in place in the GAA which discourages elite players from putting themselves at risk in Club games
Whatever than the current system where they don't play with their club from may to september. These are paid on a yearly bases so be injured in a club game for a few week won't affect the grant
* There'll be no incentive or justification to address the current poison of paid managers in the GAA ... which should be an absolute priority for the GAA
* Some players will inevitably object because they have to play more matches than players from other Counties to reach the Championship Quarter-Finals and be awarded the money that comes with that. This will fatally undermine the structure of our Championships.
* The first headline as follows is already on its way: "That refereeing decision cost us 'so-many-thousand' euros"
::) doubt it , maybe time will prove me wrong
* We will have a scenario where County A's players get the money on the basis of attending 80% of, say, 100 sessions whilst County B's players will get it on the basis of attending 80% of, say, 50 sessions
So , these are one off grants the effort you put in is up to you
* The scheme seriously expects people with full-time jobs to "visit schools and youth facilities" as part of their new "GAA contractual arrangements". The costs of those school and other visits will have to be picked up by someone: that someone will be the Counties.
never seen that , can you provide a link
* The GPA has already claimed players should be entitled to a share of TV money ("HQ Warned to Share TV Money Around", Setanta, 23 October 2007). The GAA will have no moral (let alone legal) justification for opposing such a future GPA claim ... paid directly to them of course by a third party, the TV company. (No doubt it will be backed up by the threat of strike action - which in the new pay-for-play context it will actually be a strike)
Yet again with the morals . How about the GAA have made it clear they are not giving money , never will these are government grants
* The rest of the GAA is still expected to fundraise to provide elite facilities when the users of those facilities are going to have to be paid to use them
Grants are not the same as being paid.
* The new contractual requirements placed on players are the diametric opposite to the supposed concern with over-burdening players ... and on which we recently held a Special Congress
link please
* The GAA will be morally and legally unable to oppose a sponsor who offers a County panel a large, performance-based, sum of money to win a title
More morals , what are you lads philosophers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Misé Le Méas.
Quote* There will be a financial incentive regime in place in the GAA which discourages elite players from putting themselves at risk in Club games
That rules out most club games in Laois so, U21 football championship, Camros v Castletown etc. :)
Quote from: Gnevin on February 13, 2008, 08:53:36 AM
The GAA ignores plenty of its own rules and basic principals so why should this be any different ?
Gnevin, I have no intentions of getting to this whole thing again, but if the above is honestly an argument for the grants, then I really do despair.
Surely correcting the other instances of rules / principles being broken is the thing to do, rather than add one more to the list ;)
Posted by: AZOffaly
Insert Quote
I think we've had this debate on here about 15 times at this stage, and most of those arguments were used by the 'anti' camp. I don't think we need to get into it all again.
I agree with a lot of them, but as I said, we've been there and talked this to death.
AZ, I admire the stance you've taken on this issue up to now, but your above response is misplaced on so many levels.
How is the issue talked to death when it has NEVER been discussed at any national body of the association other than Central Council?
We were talking about opening Croke Park to soccer and rugby for 5-6 years; we've only been talking about the grants for 3 months!
Most of the scenarios outlined in this list are realistic future scenarios if the grants are paid. You are going to have row after row if they are paid, for the reasons outlined and more. Going through every issue now in debate is much more preferable than ceaseless wrangling over how much a player is "worth" when you factor in inflation etc.
The pro-grants camp have absolutely no genuine answer to the legalistic implications of these grants. And yet you say, "go ahead lads, plough on anyway".
Believe me, this "debate" hasn't even begun yet.
GNevin's response to the list of 20 reasons is one of the most pathetic efforts at argument I've ever seen.
He doesn't put up a proper argument against any of the 20 points, and resorts to sarcastic talk about anti-grants people being "moral" about cloning. In case you didn't notice (although I'm sure you did, given your remarkably telepathic line of thinking with GPA HQ), but the GPA's whole case for grants is based on the argument that it is morally wrong for GAA players not to get grants when some other sportspeople do.
Yes, GNevin, no sarcasm - the GPA has been pleading about the "plight" of inter-county players - that is the moral argument to beat the band.
The following is just unbelievable:
QuoteNo grants are not effected these rulings
Of course, how could I forget, we in the GAA are not subject to European law. We live in our own little bubble and if someone takes a case based on the Bosman or Deliege cases, we can depend on a clever county secretary to get the GAA off on a technicality. The European judges wouldn't be able to handle our boys...
GrandMasterFlash - is there any chance you could fix the formatting to
make this thing readable?
Thanks.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 13, 2008, 10:38:34 AM
Quote from: Gnevin on February 13, 2008, 08:53:36 AM
The GAA ignores plenty of its own rules and basic principals so why should this be any different ?
Gnevin, I have no intentions of getting to this whole thing again, but if the above is honestly an argument for the grants, then I really do despair.
Surely correcting the other instances of rules / principles being broken is the thing to do, rather than add one more to the list ;)
Its not an argument for or against just ,more of a rant against the "List" and its many many tenuous reasons why the devil sent the grants to destroy us all
Quote from: quidnunc on February 13, 2008, 11:57:07 AM
GNevin's response to the list of 20 reasons is one of the most pathetic efforts at argument I've ever seen.
He doesn't put up a proper argument against any of the 20 points, and resorts to sarcastic talk about anti-grants people being "moral" about cloning. In case you didn't notice (although I'm sure you did, given your remarkably telepathic line of thinking with GPA HQ), but the GPA's whole case for grants is based on the argument that it is morally wrong for GAA players not to get grants when some other sportspeople do.
Yes, GNevin, no sarcasm - the GPA has been pleading about the "plight" of inter-county players - that is the moral argument to beat the band.
The following is just unbelievable:
QuoteNo grants are not effected these rulings
Of course, how could I forget, we in the GAA are not subject to European law. We live in our own little bubble and if someone takes a case based on the Bosman or Deliege cases, we can depend on a clever county secretary to get the GAA off on a technicality. The European judges wouldn't be able to handle our boys...
Why should i bother putting in any effort when the people who compiled the list put in even less effort and are only short of saying they have feeling in their waters .
Quote from: quidnunc on February 13, 2008, 11:57:07 AM
GNevin's response to the list of 20 reasons is one of the most pathetic efforts at argument I've ever seen.
He doesn't put up a proper argument against any of the 20 points, and resorts to sarcastic talk about anti-grants people being "moral" about cloning. In case you didn't notice (although I'm sure you did, given your remarkably telepathic line of thinking with GPA HQ), but the GPA's whole case for grants is based on the argument that it is morally wrong for GAA players not to get grants when some other sportspeople do.
Yes, GNevin, no sarcasm - the GPA has been pleading about the "plight" of inter-county players - that is the moral argument to beat the band.
The following is just unbelievable:
QuoteNo grants are not effected these rulings
Of course, how could I forget, we in the GAA are not subject to European law. We live in our own little bubble and if someone takes a case based on the Bosman or Deliege cases, we can depend on a clever county secretary to get the GAA off on a technicality. The European judges wouldn't be able to handle our boys...
Grants are not the same are payments ,so the bosman doesn't apply
most of those arguments were used by the 'anti' camp.
I would reject that anyone who dosent want the GAA to go down the road, so damnified by members of many rugby clubs who have been literally destroyed since the era of professionalism has came in should be described as the "anti camp". Try using Pro (but not professional) GAA camp instead. Anyone who is "Pro" Grant I ask them to talk to any member of Dungaanon Rugby Club, AIL Division 1 winners in 2000 what they think of professionalism. Dont propose your grants any more until you at least do your research. Talk to any of these guys, and then come back to the "anti" brigade.
Quote from: Gnevin on February 13, 2008, 12:01:21 PM
Its not an argument for or against just ,more of a rant against the "List" and its many many tenuous reasons why the devil sent the grants to destroy us all
Dont make a point if you dont beleive it Gnevin.
The comments about the "devil sending grants to destroy us all" is typical of the sarcastic lazy attempts to mock the anti grant camp.
This is why for the main part, I've avoided this debate, too much shite talked from both sides.
Quote from: feetofflames on February 13, 2008, 12:07:27 PM
most of those arguments were used by the 'anti' camp.
I would reject that anyone who dosent want the GAA to go down the road, so damnified by members of many rugby clubs who have been literally destroyed since the era of professionalism has came in should be described as the "anti camp". Try using Pro (but not professional) GAA camp instead. Anyone who is "Pro" Grant I ask them to talk to any member of Dungaanon Rugby Club, AIL Division 1 winners in 2000 what they think of professionalism. Dont propose your grants any more until you at least do your research. Talk to any of these guys, and then come back to the "anti" brigade.
GRANTS != Professionalism
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 13, 2008, 12:08:36 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on February 13, 2008, 12:01:21 PM
Its not an argument for or against just ,more of a rant against the "List" and its many many tenuous reasons why the devil sent the grants to destroy us all
Dont make a point if you dont beleive it Gnevin.
The comments about the "devil sending grants to destroy us all" is typical of the sarcastic lazy attempts to mock the anti grant camp.
This is why for the main part, I've avoided this debate, too much shite talked from both sides.
I'm a Dub i can feckin do what i like . ;D
HNN I've now problem with the anti grant camp and half decent arguments but that list as i've said before i just short of i feel it in my waters
Gnevin appears unaware of recently quoted case of Belgian Gymnast who took case to E.C, and the Courts view that a grant is the same as a payment butsure what would the oul European Court know!!
Quote from: zoyler on February 13, 2008, 12:14:19 PM
Gnevin appears unaware of recently quoted case of Belgian Gymnast who took case to E.C, and the Courts view that a grant is the same as a payment butsure what would the oul European Court know!!
Link please
QuoteGrants are not the same are payments ,so the bosman doesn't apply
Ok, the message just isn't getting through to GNevin. So I'm going to have to spell this out clearly once more:
In the Deliege case (the Belgian judo participant), the European Court of Justice ruled that her grant was an "economic activity" and therefore the Bosman principles did apply.End of that particular argument.
Quote from: quidnunc on February 13, 2008, 12:19:25 PM
QuoteGrants are not the same are payments ,so the bosman doesn't apply
Ok, the message just isn't getting through to GNevin. So I'm going to have to spell this out clearly once more:
In the Deliege case (the Belgian judo participant), the European Court of Justice ruled that her grant was an "economic activity" and therefore the Bosman principles did apply.
End of that particular argument.
I was unaware of this issue , I stand corrected .
QuoteI was unaware of this issue , I stand corrected .
Well maybe now we can sit down and talk, without the need for binding arbitration. ;)
Quote from: quidnunc on February 13, 2008, 12:19:25 PM
QuoteGrants are not the same are payments ,so the bosman doesn't apply
Ok, the message just isn't getting through to GNevin. So I'm going to have to spell this out clearly once more:
In the Deliege case (the Belgian judo participant), the European Court of Justice ruled that her grant was an "economic activity" and therefore the Bosman principles did apply.
End of that particular argument.
Quidinc - You need to get your facts correct on this issue......She was getting a grant from teh Belgian Judo Federation and because she was getting this grant (ie her association were paying her) the Bosman ruling applied......in this case the GAA are not paying the players so this doesn't apply.
QuoteQuidinc - You need to get your facts correct on this issue......She was getting a grant from teh Belgian Judo Federation and because she was getting this grant (ie her association were paying her) the Bosman ruling applied......in this case the GAA are not paying the players so this doesn't apply.
Oh, believe me DFS/Kingdub, I have my facts straight. But you don't seem to understand the legal principle involved. Because the grant constituted an "economic activity", it did not matter who paid it. (Never mind the fact that the GAA would be distributing the money if the grants are paid!)
And just in case you think you can bluff me, I've done some more homework on this:
Deliege was not picked by the Belgian Federation to take part in a European tournament, and she then argued in court that the Federation had limited her ability to qualify for the Olympics, and by extension, her economic earning potential, citing the Bosman precedent.
The Belgian and European Judo federations, backed up by several European governments, contended in defence that judo was an amateur sport irrespective of the grant paid, and that the grant alone would not make her a living, so Bosman could not therefore apply.
The judge ruled in Deliege's favour, on the basis that the grant constituted "economic activity" regardless of who paid it, if it went to enhance her sporting performance. As she received the grant, he decreed, she was a "non-amateur", if not a "semi-professional".
Interestingly, the judge also ruled that there IS a difference between a grant to a sportsperson and a scholarship to someone at university.
Facts straight enough now?
Quote
AZ, I admire the stance you've taken on this issue up to now, but your above response is misplaced on so many levels.
How is the issue talked to death when it has NEVER been discussed at any national body of the association other than Central Council?
We were talking about opening Croke Park to soccer and rugby for 5-6 years; we've only been talking about the grants for 3 months!
Most of the scenarios outlined in this list are realistic future scenarios if the grants are paid. You are going to have row after row if they are paid, for the reasons outlined and more. Going through every issue now in debate is much more preferable than ceaseless wrangling over how much a player is "worth" when you factor in inflation etc.
The pro-grants camp have absolutely no genuine answer to the legalistic implications of these grants. And yet you say, "go ahead lads, plough on anyway".
Believe me, this "debate" hasn't even begun yet.
I agree 100% with all of that. What I was saying is that we have done it to death on here. Positions are firmly entrenched and our recommendation has gone to Central Council :D
The issue is on the clár for Congress I believe, and that's enough for me.
Quote from: feetofflames on February 13, 2008, 12:07:27 PM
most of those arguments were used by the 'anti' camp.
I would reject that anyone who dosent want the GAA to go down the road, so damnified by members of many rugby clubs who have been literally destroyed since the era of professionalism has came in should be described as the "anti camp". Try using Pro (but not professional) GAA camp instead. Anyone who is "Pro" Grant I ask them to talk to any member of Dungaanon Rugby Club, AIL Division 1 winners in 2000 what they think of professionalism. Dont propose your grants any more until you at least do your research. Talk to any of these guys, and then come back to the "anti" brigade.
EXACTLY.
I have discussed the grants with guys that play rugby here in work, and they view professionalism in their sport as a poison. The number of teams fielded by clubs has plummeted, and this during the national team's peak - they worry about how bad things may get if/when rugby isn't getting the high profile publicity it has now.
Quote from: feetofflames on February 13, 2008, 12:07:27 PM
most of those arguments were used by the 'anti' camp.
I would reject that anyone who dosent want the GAA to go down the road, so damnified by members of many rugby clubs who have been literally destroyed since the era of professionalism has came in should be described as the "anti camp". Try using Pro (but not professional) GAA camp instead. Anyone who is "Pro" Grant I ask them to talk to any member of Dungaanon Rugby Club, AIL Division 1 winners in 2000 what they think of professionalism. Dont propose your grants any more until you at least do your research. Talk to any of these guys, and then come back to the "anti" brigade.
feetofflames, just saw this now. Sheesh, semantics ;D Alright, if I said the 'anti grants camp' would that be better?. I'm very leery of these grants, as my posts on all the other threads about this subject would show, so I am not in any way trying to insinuate that the word 'anti' in this context carries any sort of negative connotations in terms of attitudes towards the GAA.
Quote from: quidnunc on February 13, 2008, 12:53:02 PM
The judge ruled in Deliege's favour, on the basis that the grant constituted "economic activity" regardless of who paid it, if it went to enhance her sporting performance. As she received the grant, he decreed, she was a "non-amateur", if not a "semi-professional".
Interestingly, the judge also ruled that there IS a difference between a grant to a sportsperson and a scholarship to someone at university.
Facts straight enough now?
The judge did not say "regardless of who paid it".
My interpretation is that the fact it was the judo federation paying it was very important.
Your interpretation would equate to any sponsorship or gift to a sportsperson as representing an employee-employer situation. Which would be nonsense in my view.
And even in the unlikely event of you being right, what's the worst thing that can happen?
Player transfers can only happen if they are allowed under GAA rules. If young brilliant Clare footballer wants to play for Kerry, but Kerry won't take him because he doesnt qualify, there is nothing he can do - Bosman or no Bosman. Only if the Kerry (or other) county boards change their rules or policies on accepting outsiders would there be any chance of unrestricted inter county transfers.
It all comes back to the one thing, that many can't get into their heads. No matter what the players may want, there is no chance of professional GAA unless and until GAA officialdom brings it in.
QuoteIt all comes back to the one thing, that many can't get into their heads. No matter what the players may want, there is no chance of professional GAA unless and until GAA officialdom brings it in.
Or unless they are forced to bring it in via a series of ever escalating disputes and mini battles which all lead towards the real end-game.
We've had this before Hound, and you are definitely a 'glass half full guy', whereas I am 'glass half empty guy' when it comes to the grand vision the GPA has for itself and its members. I don't think we are going to agree. And in 35 years time, when the first professional contract is signed, I'll come onto the holographic GAA board and say 'See. Told you so.' ;D
QuoteThe judge did not say "regardless of who paid it".
My interpretation is that the fact it was the judo federation paying it was very important.
However, I do agree with you here. I took the same interpretation of that Belgian ruling, i.e. because the Federation directly paid from their own funds all or part of the grant, then it constituted economic activity.
Still, I think the scenario whereby the GPA intensely lobby the GAA for money if and when the Government decide that it cannot pay GAA players grants for kicking/pucking a ball around, especially in recessionary times, and the GAA capitulating after another series of strikes and threatened strikes is not a totally unrealistic vision.
The GAA have shown a decided lack of resolve in standing up to GPA demands in the past, (of course some of those demands were perfectly reasonable, and no right minding person should have 'stood up to them') and therefore I doubt if the GAA has the real stomach to take on the GPA if these issues did come to a head.
Hound - while not ceding ground on the transferability issue - can you not see a scenario when county x or y ( OK Wicklow or Kildare) actively encourage inward transfer in their search for a better team that a Bosman situation will arise. And if Counties can start recruiting they will give the AFL a lesson in the art.
London anger at 'exclusion' from grant scheme
By Cliona Foley
Thursday February 14 2008
LONDON'S inter-county players have expressed outrage at speculation that they will not be included in the new GAA grant scheme, WRITES CLIONA FOLEY.
Croke Park have begun negotiations with the Irish Sports Council (ISC) on how to distribute the money, ISC boss John Treacy confirmed yesterday. But overseas inter-county players -- from London and New York -- are still waiting for official confirmation that they will get their share of the controversial scheme.
London football keeper Brian McBrearty said he has received a recent assurance from GPA CEO Dessie Farrell that they will be included. "There seems to be a lot of scaremongering going on but I'd be very surprised and disappointed if we weren't included," said McBrearty, who is the official GPA rep for London.
"The GPA balloted everyone over here. If they didn't want us to get anything, why did they ballot us in the first place? If that turns out to be the case it stinks of elitism."
Donegal native McBrearty said he spoke to Farrell on the matter last Friday but said he and his exile playing colleagues have not yet had any confirmation from central authorities.
The distribution mechanism for the grants still has to resolved and meetings with the Sports Council to sort out this problematic area are now ongoing.
A lot of county boards put their foot down and said they would not get involved in the distribution, which forced the GAA to go to the Sports Council to see if they will administer the scheme centrally.
And while the payment of grants for players who play senior championship has been agreed in principle, it must yet be ratified at National Congress in April and it is clear that it will face strong opposition from several counties at that final stage.
What a non-story.
Quote
LONDON'S inter-county players have expressed outrage at speculation that they will not be included in the new GAA grant scheme, WRITES CLIONA FOLEY.
Croke Park have begun negotiations with the Irish Sports Council (ISC) on how to distribute the money, ISC boss John Treacy confirmed yesterday. But overseas inter-county players -- from London and New York -- are still waiting for official confirmation that they will get their share of the controversial scheme.
London football keeper Brian McBrearty said he has received a recent assurance from GPA CEO Dessie Farrell that they will be included. "There seems to be a lot of scaremongering going on but I'd be very surprised and disappointed if we weren't included," said McBrearty, who is the official GPA rep for London.
"The GPA balloted everyone over here. If they didn't want us to get anything, why did they ballot us in the first place? If that turns out to be the case it stinks of elitism."
Donegal native McBrearty said he spoke to Farrell on the matter last Friday but said he and his exile playing colleagues have not yet had any confirmation from central authorities.
The distribution mechanism for the grants still has to resolved and meetings with the Sports Council to sort out this problematic area are now ongoing.
A lot of county boards put their foot down and said they would not get involved in the distribution, which forced the GAA to go to the Sports Council to see if they will administer the scheme centrally.
And while the payment of grants for players who play senior championship has been agreed in principle, it must yet be ratified at National Congress in April and it is clear that it will face strong opposition from several counties at that final stage.
Basically, GAA try to sort out distribution, matter still to be ratified at Congress, no official word yet, blah blah blah. Yet 'London anger at 'exclusion' from grant scheme'. nice use of quotes around 'exclusion' to show that this whole story is made up.
QuoteThe judge did not say "regardless of who paid it".
My interpretation is that the fact it was the judo federation paying it was very important.
I was paraphrasing the judge, but the point still holds true.
A legal person, having analysed the judge's decision, concluded that "it does not matter whether the players receive the grant directly from the federation or from elsewhere; what matters is that the grants are paid to them consistently over a period of time and are dependent on their participation in the sport. The hullabaloo over whether it is the GAA or the Sports Council that pays the grant would then be irrelevant. Paying a grant for participating in a sport establishes an economic link under EU law."
The argument that it matters who pays is silly for another reason. The GAA would be distributing the money. It would be a party to and partner of the agreement; it would be aiding and abetting. Someone who is laundering money can't just say, "It's not money, I'm just distributing it and I have no responsibility for it."
QuoteAnd even in the unlikely event of you being right, what's the worst thing that can happen?
Player transfers can only happen if they are allowed under GAA rules. If young brilliant Clare footballer wants to play for Kerry, but Kerry won't take him because he doesnt qualify, there is nothing he can do - Bosman or no Bosman. Only if the Kerry (or other) county boards change their rules or policies on accepting outsiders would there be any chance of unrestricted inter county transfers.
You just don't understand this, do you? It is blatantly obvious how a Clare footballer could take a case about unfair restriction of his attempts to join Kerry:
1. Kerry reach the last 12 of the football championship practically every year without fail. Therefore the Kerry players would be entitled to the higher rate of grant. Clare footballers have not reached the last 12 in a decade and are unlikely to do so most years. Therefore the Clare footballers would get the lower rate of grant.
In any given year, the Clare footballer can take a case to the ECJ, on the precedent of the Deliege case, to say that the GAA's rules on transfers, COMBINED WITH the grants scheme, is an unfair restriction of his potential to maximise his earnings accruing from football. He would argue that he is discriminated against because of his county of birth, over which he has no control.
The ECJ would inevitably - as the vast majority of legal decisions are based on precedent - that the inter-county footballer was a "non-amateur" and patently engaged in an "economic activity", and that the GAA rules put unfair restrictions on his economic movement. He would win huge compensation, and it would mean that as long as the grants were paid, any player should have freedom of movement by transfer.
The most profound effect of this would probably be that good club players from, say Kerry, could demand transfers to a weaker football county, such as Clare, in the hope of getting onto the Clare county team. They would argue that it is unfair discrimination to say that they cannot go to Clare in the hope of earning money from playing football, when they were born in a county where there is greater competition. And they would inevitably win their cases. So all established transfer rules would be dead letters. So there's a lot of scope for a businessman, in Denis O'Brien style, to step in and say,"I want to act as a benefactor for Clare football; can we get 20 good players up from Kerry?"
QuoteIt all comes back to the one thing, that many can't get into their heads. No matter what the players may want, there is no chance of professional GAA unless and until GAA officialdom brings it in.
To reiterate or synopsise my argument above, the GAA's laws on transfers are automatically superseded by European law when there is a proven ecoonomic activity and incentive. You can't seem to get your head around this.
And by the way, in every other sport that became professional, the professionalism actually happened (a) against the stated wishes of the governing body; or (b) the governing body tried to bring it in in a controlled way, but soon found out that it was a beat that could not be tamed or kept in subjection.
Why doesn't the Bosman apply to International teams?
QuoteWhy doesn't the Bosman apply to International teams?
Most people competing for international teams would have too much pride in their own country to seek a transfer to another country, let alone force a legal case to get that transfer. Plus international teams play irregularly, which means that they are engaged with clubs as their primary source of income, and they may have lost their international place from season to the next.
But Bosman would almost certainly apply if it were put to the test. Hence Kenyan athletes are running for countries like Denmark and Qatar and it is allowed, although many people are unhappy about it.
do international footballers get paid for being on international duty?
Quotedo international footballers get paid for being on international duty?
International soccer players do anyway.
I have no doubt that there are those in our midst who are itching to be the first to bosmanise the GAA.
Quote from: quidnunc on February 14, 2008, 12:28:59 PM
QuoteWhy doesn't the Bosman apply to International teams?
Most people competing for international teams would have too much pride in their own country to seek a transfer to another country, let alone force a legal case to get that transfer. Plus international teams play irregularly, which means that they are engaged with clubs as their primary source of income, and they may have lost their international place from season to the next.
But Bosman would almost certainly apply if it were put to the test. Hence Kenyan athletes are running for countries like Denmark and Qatar and it is allowed, although many people are unhappy about it.
You write a good story quidnunc - but thats all it is - a story.
No way can the EU or anyone else impose new rules on the GAA regarding who can play for what county. The only time we might get into trouble is if some counties try and push out their boundaries - even then I don't see individual counties ever challenging the GAA rules - but if they do its them at fault, not the players.
The whole international soccer comparison proves irrefutably that your arguments are invalid.
And the Kenyan athletes have absolutely nothing to do with Bosman or the EU!!! Thats just down to nationality rules in the relevant countries.
QuoteNo way can the EU or anyone else impose new rules on the GAA regarding who can play for what county. The only time we might get into trouble is if some counties try and push out their boundaries - even then I don't see individual counties ever challenging the GAA rules - but if they do its them at fault, not the players.
There are none so blind... In fact, you are deliberately twisting what is clearly obvious.
It wouldn't be about "individual counties ever challenging the GAA rules" or the EU imposing "new rules on the GAA regarding who can play for what county".
It would be about a player challenging the rules and the EU saying that the GAA, being to a party to a grants system constituting "economic activity", has rules of transfer that are unfairly restrictive for its participants. If Rory O'Connell or Derry Foley or Na Fianna are prepared to go to the courts over suspensions/disqualifications, sure as hell players are going to go to court to enable themselves to earn more money.
I don't recall anyone saying the EU would impose rules on who could play for any county. But in a Deliege/Bosman-type decision, as long as grants were paid, ANY GAA player could assert his legal right to play for ANY county and earn as much as his potential will allow.
QuoteThe whole international soccer comparison proves irrefutably that your arguments are invalid.
How exactly is that then? An Irish international soccer player earns nearly all of his income from club duty. He earns relatively little from internatonal duty, infrequent as it is. It is not worth his while, for the money or his reputation, to seek to play for another country, even though in many circumstances he could.
Quote
And the Kenyan athletes have absolutely nothing to do with Bosman or the EU!!! Thats just down to nationality rules in the relevant countries.
I didn't intend it to be an exact comparison. It was just the first example that I thought of. But it is still relevant, because it shows that sportspeople can represent a country other than their own in international competition, even if their qualification grounds are tenuous and money is obviously their primary motive. Once participation in any sport is legally established as a profitable enterprise, the ordinary rules of territorial jurisdiction and the governing body's will/ability to enforce them, shrink to insignificance.
Is this thread a wind up?
what's the point if posters are going to present opinion as fact and, going by this thread, hunches as legal standing.
Do the grants get handed out this coming year saying as there won't be any congress til the autumn?
QuoteIs this thread a wind up?
what's the point if posters are going to present opinion as fact and, going by this thread, hunches as legal standing.
Do the grants get handed out this coming year saying as there won't be any congress til the autumn?
I hope your message isn't a wind-up - Congress is in April.
I am not presenting opinion or hunches. I am quoting from the decision in the case and others' legal analysis of the decision. Its proper title is
Christelle Deliège V Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines ASBL (Joined cases C-51/96 and C-191/97)
I would post the whole bloody decision up here but it's 20 pages long and I don't think anyone would thank me for that.
But if you seek a copy of the decision, you might find it, and see that I am quoting fact.
As a total layman, i cannot see how that ruling can be applied to the situation that confronts us?
Whatever about who pays it, blocking a transfer from a big county where the guy doesnt get near the team, to a small one where he will definately play, is affecting the players "earnings", and as such, he would surely have a case to get the courts involved?
I'm not going to quote previous cases, as this is a unique situation, but bosmas was unique at the time.
Just because it hasnt happened before doesnt mean it wont.
Re European Laws vs Association rules...
What happened the rule in the English Premier League some years back? I can't remember exactly what happened but I think it might be relevant here. There was a rule about the number of foreign players that could play in a team and this has since been done away with - because it was going against European Law as far as I know. There's been talk about this rule being reintroduced but its been said that it will never happen again because European Law won't alllow it.
I'm not using this as an example of how a player could transfer from team to team, but more as an example of how the GAA would have to alter their rules to ensure they meet any relevant European Laws - just like the Premier League had to do away with their rule restricting the number of foreign players in each team's starting 11.
This could result in players moving freely between teams and using European Laws to do it and the GAA's rules would not stand up against this. If the GAA did try to prevent this free movement from county to county and thus restricting someone's potential earnings, then surely they could be leaving themselves open to court cases and possible compensation as quidnunc has suggested.
We now have the ludicrus position where players in London & New York are now expectiung to get 'their grant monies' as well. So now Irish taxpayers will be paying grants to UK taxpayers as well as players in New York who may be illegal immigrants. The whole thing is crazy,
Hound's view seem to be that the GAA can create any rules it likes as to what the eligibility rules are for playing for a club / county and there is nowt the courts can do about it. To illustrate how misguided this position is, look at the case of Maros Kolpak (http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/columnists/sportcrawler/lawlor030807.asp) and the impact on English cricket. Kolpak was (still is?) a Slovakian handball player in the German leagues. He was released by his club due to quotas and he took his case to the European Court of Justice, which found in his favour on the basis that if you meet the work permit criteria, it would be discriminatory to prevent you playing on the basis of nationality quotas. The kicker for English cricket was that seeing as Britain has trading relationships with its former colonies, people from those colonies could not be prevented from plying their trade in England as professional cricketers by means of quotas.
Now, I realise this has little direct relevance to the GAA. But the important point for us is what happened when the Englandandwales Cricket Board tried to implement rules to regulate the access of foreigners to the the county game. They stated that to play county cricket, you could not have played international cricket for 12 months previously. Yet when Yorkshire signed Jacques Rudolph in 2007, the ECB admitted that they could not prevent Rudolph from playing for Yorkshire (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/southafrica/content/story/287993.html) because they knew that if Yorkshire and / or Rudolph took the matter to court, the ECB would be taken to the cleaners. They were reduced to tut-tutting at people doing things that may "not be in the best interests of cricket in England and Wales generally". If the ECB can't get their eighteen counties to act in "best interests" of the game, what chance that the GAA will be able to it's thirty-two plus counties to act in a collective (i.e. cartel-like) manner?
A few ways around it :
1) All GAA players be invited to apply for a pro (really semi-pro) contract. The GAA to be the employer. Part of the terms of the contract is that the employer can assign the employee to any branch of the company (ie. county team) that they see fit. No different than working for a bank and being sent to a particular branch. That way the player cannot complain about where they are sent (unless it is completely unfeasible which is ulikely in a country the size of Ireland). Maintains county "loyalty". Players cannot demand a transfer as there is only 1 employer (the US Major League Soccer model)
2) Players are invited to apply, with the acceptance that they will play for whoever picks them (the US NFL & NBAand Australian AFL model). If they don't like it, they can always stay with their amateur minor league club.
3) stay as is - some players will be paid under the table, others will go to AFL, others will quit, most will just play.
Quote from: Tiger Craig on February 15, 2008, 04:11:51 AM
A few ways around it :
1) All GAA players be invited to apply for a pro (really semi-pro) contract. The GAA to be the employer. Part of the terms of the contract is that the employer can assign the employee to any branch of the company (ie. county team) that they see fit. No different than working for a bank and being sent to a particular branch. That way the player cannot complain about where they are sent (unless it is completely unfeasible which is ulikely in a country the size of Ireland). Maintains county "loyalty". Players cannot demand a transfer as there is only 1 employer (the US Major League Soccer model)
2) Players are invited to apply, with the acceptance that they will play for whoever picks them (the US NFL & NBAand Australian AFL model). If they don't like it, they can always stay with their amateur minor league club.
3) stay as is - some players will be paid under the table, others will go to AFL, others will quit, most will just play.
Sorry TC, No.1 won't work because the whole ethos of the GAA, the fundamental heart of the organisation if you like is the parish and it will be next or near (dare I say totally) impossible to get it to work. Imagine, a Derry club man playing for Antrim :'( ?
No. 2 would require a salary-cap type limit on the power of big counties like Dublin or Cork, Derry or Tyrone.
Just imagine if the Dockers were formed the same time the Eagles were. Who'd have won the premiership first? The downside to that would be Freo would have had first pick of Junky Cousins.
Quote from: deiseach on February 14, 2008, 08:30:18 PM
If the ECB can't get their eighteen counties to act in "best interests" of the game, what chance that the GAA will be able to it's thirty-two plus counties to act in a collective (i.e. cartel-like) manner?
That point is absolutely true deiseach, but nothing to do with the grants. The grants will have no impact on this whatsoever, no matter what stories quidnunc comes up with about players going to the Euopean Courts so they can get their extra 200 euro per annum from playing with a good team!
At any stage any county can try and break the current rules (or go to court to get the rules changed) in order to poach players from different counties. There are counties that push the existing rules as far as they can in order to encourage players to play for them - but so far no county has decided to take the GAA on regarding a change in rules. There is no question that the GAA mindset is different to the ECB mindset. That may well change in the future, but these grants would be totally irrelevant to that.
And I repeat, even in the highly unlikely event of a Clare footballer going to the European Courts to get rules changed so he can get his extra 4 euro a week, no court could force Kerry or Tyrone or anyone else to take him. The counties will contiue to use their current selection processes until the counties themselves or the GAA decide to change the poilcy. No player or court can impact that, unless they have the support of a renegade county - and to repeat one more time, that can happen at any time and has nothing to do with the grants.
The grants change nothing.
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2008, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 14, 2008, 08:30:18 PM
If the ECB can't get their eighteen counties to act in "best interests" of the game, what chance that the GAA will be able to it's thirty-two plus counties to act in a collective (i.e. cartel-like) manner?
That point is absolutely true deiseach, but nothing to do with the grants. The grants will have no impact on this whatsoever, no matter what stories quidnunc comes up with about players going to the Euopean Courts so they can get their extra 200 euro per annum from playing with a good team!
At any stage any county can try and break the current rules (or go to court to get the rules changed) in order to poach players from different counties. There are counties that push the existing rules as far as they can in order to encourage players to play for them - but so far no county has decided to take the GAA on regarding a change in rules. There is no question that the GAA mindset is different to the ECB mindset. That may well change in the future, but these grants would be totally irrelevant to that.
And I repeat, even in the highly unlikely event of a Clare footballer going to the European Courts to get rules changed so he can get his extra 4 euro a week, no court could force Kerry or Tyrone or anyone else to take him. The counties will contiue to use their current selection processes until the counties themselves or the GAA decide to change the poilcy. No player or court can impact that, unless they have the support of a renegade county - and to repeat one more time, that can happen at any time and has nothing to do with the grants.
The grants change nothing.
Hound, you can say as many times as you like that these things have "nothing to do with the grants", that "the grants would be totally irrelevant to that" and the "the grants change nothing". The grants will change things. The idea that the GAA will rumble along as it always has, with the only thing different being that the players have a few extra quid in their pockets, is fanciful in the extreme. All the other sporting organisations that have been mentioned in this thread, whether it be soccer, handball, cricket or judo, thought they could maintain the status quo. They were all proven wrong. Given the current body of precedent for employment law - and a plaintiff would not have to go all the way to Luxembourg to argue their case, there is a perfectly acceptable forum on the north quays in Dublin where they can utilise the precedents established in the ECJ as being binding under Irish law - any attempt to prevent a person moving to a better paid post on the basis of quotas would be doomed to failure. Now, perhaps any county that attempted to poach a player on this basis would be considered a 'renegade county'. But when you consider that a county in England considered it worth incurring the wrath of their peers to secure an advantage in winning the cricket county championship, a title that anyone who knows cricket will tell you is about as meaningful as the FBD League or the Waterford Crystal Cup - Shane Warne has agreed with Hampshire that he can miss a few matches this coming season so he can play poker - then it isn't a great leap to see a county being happy to screw its neighbours over in order to win Sam or Liam.
Deiseach - The difference is that the counties in England play their players in a professional sport - Gaelic players are getting grants from teh Govt and are not employed in anyway by the GAA.....The case taken was due to the fact they were getting paid by their own sporting body and the body therefore were the ones denying her the oppurtunity..
Quote from: DUBSFORSAM1 on February 15, 2008, 08:06:23 PM
Deiseach - The difference is that the counties in England play their players in a professional sport - Gaelic players are getting grants from teh Govt and are not employed in anyway by the GAA.....The case taken was due to the fact they were getting paid by their own sporting body and the body therefore were the ones denying her the oppurtunity..
So you're saying the courts would be happy with an argument that it was all right for the GAA's rules to prevent someone earning a bigger crust, however small that bigger crust might be, because the whole crust was coming from a third party? Even though it was activity under the auspices of the GAA from which said crust was being earned? I find your faith that the courts would buy such a Chinese wall to be dubious, to say the least.
Let me put it this way. What happened to Jean Marc Bosman could not have happened in England where, if a player was offered less than his previous contract when this contract was up, he could walk away from the club and transfer fees be damned. The authorities in England probably believed their more reasonable system protected them from any consequences of Bosman winning his case. They were incredibly wrong, and the ripples are still being felt to this day. Once money changes hands for services rendered, you are subject to employment law. No amount of sophistry will change the fact that once the grants scheme comes in, the way the players interact with their 'employers' will change.
Quote from: deiseach on February 15, 2008, 08:21:29 PM
Quote from: DUBSFORSAM1 on February 15, 2008, 08:06:23 PM
Deiseach - The difference is that the counties in England play their players in a professional sport - Gaelic players are getting grants from teh Govt and are not employed in anyway by the GAA.....The case taken was due to the fact they were getting paid by their own sporting body and the body therefore were the ones denying her the oppurtunity..
So you're saying the courts would be happy with an argument that it was all right for the GAA's rules to prevent someone earning a bigger crust, however small that bigger crust might be, because the whole crust was coming from a third party? Even though it was activity under the auspices of the GAA from which said crust was being earned? I find your faith that the courts would buy such a Chinese wall to be dubious, to say the least.
Let me put it this way. What happened to Jean Marc Bosman could not have happened in England where, if a player was offered less than his previous contract when this contract was up, he could walk away from the club and transfer fees be damned. The authorities in England probably believed their more reasonable system protected them from any consequences of Bosman winning his case. They were incredibly wrong, and the ripples are still being felt to this day. Once money changes hands for services rendered, you are subject to employment law. No amount of sophistry will change the fact that once the grants scheme comes in, the way the players interact with their 'employers' will change.
Ok Deiseach I will try and explain this in a simple way -
I work as a independent consultant, my company "ie me" is employed by an agency on behalf of the bank I work in....My rates are paid by the agency so I am not an employee of the Bank where I work as I don't get paid by them so I have no "employee" rights as such with the bank as I am not their employee...
Quote from: DUBSFORSAM1 on February 15, 2008, 11:20:48 PM
Ok Deiseach I will try and explain this in a simple way -
I work as a independent consultant, my company "ie me" is employed by an agency on behalf of the bank I work in....My rates are paid by the agency so I am not an employee of the Bank where I work as I don't get paid by them so I have no "employee" rights as such with the bank as I am not their employee...
You still have employee rights from being a citizen of Ireland and the EU. Imagine the stink if the agency said that they weren't sending you to work in a particular bank because, despite the branch in question wanting to employ you, the banks head office had a policy of not employing Dubs in that branch. Somehow I can't see the "we make our own rules" argument would cut any ice with the beak should it ever come to court.
Lads, I am just thinkin in my head here. Would anyone be opposed to a GPA initiative to increase current milage rates from the existing 50c a mile to, say €2 or €3 a mile? Now this would be well within the rules of the association and would probab;ly mean more money for the players themselves. I am in no way saying this should be done or anythin but I am wondering whether people would have a problem with that initiative rather than the grants proposal.
In essence it is pay for play but under existing rules it technically isn't pay for play. Maybe I am totally wrong but that would be my take on it
QuoteOk Deiseach I will try and explain this in a simple way -
I work as a independent consultant, my company "ie me" is employed by an agency on behalf of the bank I work in....My rates are paid by the agency so I am not an employee of the Bank where I work as I don't get paid by them so I have no "employee" rights as such with the bank as I am not their employee...
The irony! Deiseach's contributions have been much more erudite than yours, and then you come out with this garbled nonsense. I cannot make sense of it no matter how many times I read it. Try some punctuation for a start.
Again, it doesn't matter who pays the money - Chelsea FC players are affiliated to the FA Premier League, but it doesn't pay their wages. Their wages are paid by the club/agency called Chelsea FC, or by Roman Abramovich basically. They are entitled to all the freedom of movement rights established by Bosman.
Quote from: Hound on February 15, 2008, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 14, 2008, 08:30:18 PM
If the ECB can't get their eighteen counties to act in "best interests" of the game, what chance that the GAA will be able to it's thirty-two plus counties to act in a collective (i.e. cartel-like) manner?
That point is absolutely true deiseach, but nothing to do with the grants. The grants will have no impact on this whatsoever, no matter what stories quidnunc comes up with about players going to the Euopean Courts so they can get their extra 200 euro per annum from playing with a good team!
At any stage any county can try and break the current rules (or go to court to get the rules changed) in order to poach players from different counties. There are counties that push the existing rules as far as they can in order to encourage players to play for them - but so far no county has decided to take the GAA on regarding a change in rules. There is no question that the GAA mindset is different to the ECB mindset. That may well change in the future, but these grants would be totally irrelevant to that.
And I repeat, even in the highly unlikely event of a Clare footballer going to the European Courts to get rules changed so he can get his extra 4 euro a week, no court could force Kerry or Tyrone or anyone else to take him. The counties will contiue to use their current selection processes until the counties themselves or the GAA decide to change the poilcy. No player or court can impact that, unless they have the support of a renegade county - and to repeat one more time, that can happen at any time and has nothing to do with the grants.
The grants change nothing.
Hound - can i ask you where u are getting the figure in bold above. As far as i know there has been no release of details of what different teams will get with respect to the present grants proposal.
And the difference between All Ireland finalists and 2nd round qualifier losers was 20 euro per week if you take the originall figures put forward by the GAA/GPA to the government.
I would genuinely be glad to hear where you get these figures from as it seems you know more than the rest of us.
Quote from: quidnunc on February 16, 2008, 12:02:58 AM
QuoteOk Deiseach I will try and explain this in a simple way -
I work as a independent consultant, my company "ie me" is employed by an agency on behalf of the bank I work in....My rates are paid by the agency so I am not an employee of the Bank where I work as I don't get paid by them so I have no "employee" rights as such with the bank as I am not their employee...
The irony! Deiseach's contributions have been much more erudite than yours, and then you come out with this garbled nonsense. I cannot make sense of it no matter how many times I read it. Try some punctuation for a start.
Again, it doesn't matter who pays the money - Chelsea FC players are affiliated to the FA Premier League, but it doesn't pay their wages. Their wages are paid by the club/agency called Chelsea FC, or by Roman Abramovich basically. They are entitled to all the freedom of movement rights established by Bosman.
The Chelsea footballers are "professional" footballers who are employed to play football for a club and paid by the club.....GAA players are amateur who get their wages paid by their employers and who get a Govt grant....that is a totally different scenario or can you not comprehend that..
Whether it is a grant or a wage, the ability to maximise your income is compromised because the rules of association discriminate against people on the basis of where they are from. It would be akin to the Scottish executive offering lower grants to students because they were from England. Either the grants are the same regardless of where you are from or you allow people to move in a meritocratic fashion. The choice is yours . . .