Allianz

[Baile Brigín 2]

Replacing the million odd quid a year in sponsorship would be the easy bit.
Every club and ground in the country are insured via Allianz. To unravel that and start fresh with another company is the big challenge. Not saying it can't be done but not straightforward

So if the GAA pull the sponsorship deal they would, illegally, pull 2,000 odd policies?

[Wildweasel74]

You need to have a replacement in place, not be a headless chicken like Trump.

[johnnycool]

Some things are bigger than money. How much do Allianz put in? Surely there's non child killing companies who would step up and fill at least some of the void?

This is not just about the Allianz sponsorship, Allianz are also the GAA's insurance provider in a very limited market.

Yes, get rid of Allianz but trying to get another insurance provider not balls deep in the Zionist project won't be easy

[Baile Brigín 2]

Some things are bigger than money. How much do Allianz put in? Surely there's non child killing companies who would step up and fill at least some of the void?

This is not just about the Allianz sponsorship, Allianz are also the GAA's insurance provider in a very limited market.

Yes, get rid of Allianz but trying to get another insurance provider not balls deep in the Zionist project won't be easy

Yet every other sport manages to insure itself...

[Silver hill]

Replacing the million odd quid a year in sponsorship would be the easy bit.
Every club and ground in the country are insured via Allianz. To unravel that and start fresh with another company is the big challenge. Not saying it can't be done but not straightforward

So if the GAA pull the sponsorship deal they would, illegally, pull 2,000 odd policies?

It would go a long way to appeasing the GAA grassroot membership who are opposed to the sponsorship if The President terminated the contract. The insurance piece would be a longer term project as it's not something that you can just change overnight given the intricacies and the amount of clubs involved. Allianz can't just throw a hissy fit and tear up all the GAA contracts either. The optics on that would be disastrous. Jarlath gas misread the room though he still has time to do the right thing and a consequence of that is that he saves his legacy ( and despite the public persona he likes to portray, that matters a lot to him).

[Baile Brigín 2]

Replacing the million odd quid a year in sponsorship would be the easy bit.
Every club and ground in the country are insured via Allianz. To unravel that and start fresh with another company is the big challenge. Not saying it can't be done but not straightforward

So if the GAA pull the sponsorship deal they would, illegally, pull 2,000 odd policies?

It would go a long way to appeasing the GAA grassroot membership who are opposed to the sponsorship if The President terminated the contract. The insurance piece would be a longer term project as it's not something that you can just change overnight given the intricacies and the amount of clubs involved. Allianz can't just throw a hissy fit and tear up all the GAA contracts either. The optics on that would be disastrous. Jarlath gas misread the room though he still has time to do the right thing and a consequence of that is that he saves his legacy ( and despite the public persona he likes to portray, that matters a lot to him).

I am agreeing with you. The sponsorship and insurance can be handled differently.

If there isn't a morality clause, which is unlikely, I would pay to see Allianz sue the GAA in front of an Irish jury for refusing to take their money.

It's the lazy call and the GAA has been totally corrupted in defending it.

[Rossfan]

Most contracts consist of giving someone money and breaking it means you stop paying which leads to being taken to Court etc.
Breaking a contract where you stop taking money...  ?

Anyway was it 9 County Boards, incl my own, passed motions to end the Sponsorship?
Therefore it should have gone to Congress where the top table could have pointed out the legalities and reasons for not ending it etc.
Possibly might have meant amending the motion to "begin the process of ending the Allianz sponsorship "

[GTP]

There appears to be two trains of thought being debated here:
•    Since every other sport manages to insure itself and replacing the million odd quid a year in sponsorship would be easy the GAA could move to rid itself of all involvement with the sponsor with no effect whatsoever on the sport, players, matches or supporters.
or
•    GAA should terminate the contract with the sponsor for the National Football League as they have supported genocide through the purchase of Israeli war bonds.
•    The sponsor should accept the GAA calling them genocide enablers and continue to provide insurance as per their contractual arrangement with the GAA.
•    The GAA should accept doing business with the genocide enablers when it comes to giving them money, for insurance purposes, but not taking their money, for sponsorship purposes, as one is apparently more complicated to get out of than the other.
•    An unknown company will look at this and think there is no way us sponsoring the National Football League can go wrong as there is nothing in our past, present or future that won't cause a "Gaels Against" movement to protest our name being associated with the GAA. They will then pay whatever the current sponsor is paying as in no way has the product been devalued by protest and disharmony in the association.
•    Insurance can then be moved away from the sponsor to other providers not associated with genocide presumably when the various policies are due to be renewed.

I accept that members on a discussion board cannot know the business relationships within the GAA, but I have seen no credible argument made that losing the sponsor will not harm the GAA. Nor have I seen a credible argument made as to what cost is acceptable to those protesting against the sponsor. Or any credible argument as to what alternative insurer or sponsor or insurer exists. Saying you are against something is easy bit solving this issue so that the protestors accept the position may not be quite as easy as some people seem to believe

[trueblue1234]

There appears to be two trains of thought being debated here:
•    Since every other sport manages to insure itself and replacing the million odd quid a year in sponsorship would be easy the GAA could move to rid itself of all involvement with the sponsor with no effect whatsoever on the sport, players, matches or supporters.
or
•    GAA should terminate the contract with the sponsor for the National Football League as they have supported genocide through the purchase of Israeli war bonds.
•    The sponsor should accept the GAA calling them genocide enablers and continue to provide insurance as per their contractual arrangement with the GAA.
•    The GAA should accept doing business with the genocide enablers when it comes to giving them money, for insurance purposes, but not taking their money, for sponsorship purposes, as one is apparently more complicated to get out of than the other.
•    An unknown company will look at this and think there is no way us sponsoring the National Football League can go wrong as there is nothing in our past, present or future that won't cause a "Gaels Against" movement to protest our name being associated with the GAA. They will then pay whatever the current sponsor is paying as in no way has the product been devalued by protest and disharmony in the association.
•    Insurance can then be moved away from the sponsor to other providers not associated with genocide presumably when the various policies are due to be renewed.

I accept that members on a discussion board cannot know the business relationships within the GAA, but I have seen no credible argument made that losing the sponsor will not harm the GAA. Nor have I seen a credible argument made as to what cost is acceptable to those protesting against the sponsor. Or any credible argument as to what alternative insurer or sponsor or insurer exists. Saying you are against something is easy bit solving this issue so that the protestors accept the position may not be quite as easy as some people seem to believe

It's not for the people of the GAABoard to fix. As you state, we don't know the ins and outs or the technicalities. So looking to the GAABoard for an answer would be stupidity of the highest level.
I think everyone knows that the GAA will prob be in a worse position in getting rid of them. That doesn't mean it's still not the right thing to do.
I don't believe the ROI should be playing Israel either. Both actions will cause major pain for the organisations, but I think both actions should be taken.
Has the GAA tried to look at other insurers? Is there terms in the sponsorship linked to the policies? Are they two totally separate issues that can be dealt with independently? Are there other sponsors available who are interested? Imagine the positive goodwill a company might get in "buying out" the sponsorship from Allianz.
Those aren't answers you are going to get on the GAAboard. I haven't seen a whole pile of info coming from the GAA on the above other than it can not be done. This is not a small issue for many people. And the GAA has not dealt with it well in any shape.
In one way I feel sorry for JB, a lot has come to his door in his brief stint in charge. But he has not handled it well, which is disappointing as I had higher hopes for him going in.

[Truthsayer]

GAA has done nothing to address the Allianz situation.
Cathair O'Kane of the Irish News said it this week; the GAA hierarchy thought this would blow over. O'Kane said: "They thought there are low numbers outside grounds protesting, people will get tired of it and they were slowly dripfeeding the Allianz signs back behind post-match interviews... but the protesters have the large majority support of the GAA public".
Jarlath's reaction to protesters going into Congress has been a PR disaster for him. They will now have to address this. It is not going away.. far from it!

[Armagh18]

I genuinely don't care what it would cost ffs. They're funding people that are murdering children day in day out. If it's a million a year a good pay cut for that p***k Burns and his buddies would soften plenty of that.

[JoG2]

I genuinely don't care what it would cost ffs. They're funding people that are murdering children day in day out. If it's a million a year a good pay cut for that p***k Burns and his buddies would soften plenty of that.

You think of what the GAA and soccer brings to every country village, town and city on this island , from a financial pov, the state should be stepping in and supporting Croke Pk and the FAI

[johnnycool]

Some things are bigger than money. How much do Allianz put in? Surely there's non child killing companies who would step up and fill at least some of the void?

This is not just about the Allianz sponsorship, Allianz are also the GAA's insurance provider in a very limited market.

Yes, get rid of Allianz but trying to get another insurance provider not balls deep in the Zionist project won't be easy

Yet every other sport manages to insure itself...

Who do the IRFU or FAI use?

They may well be using Allianz as well for all we know.

I'm not saying there aren't other options out there.

[snoopdog]

Id say Aviva cover those 2. Considering they have the naming rights for the stadium.

[tbrick18]

I genuinely don't care what it would cost ffs. They're funding people that are murdering children day in day out. If it's a million a year a good pay cut for that p***k Burns and his buddies would soften plenty of that.

Short and to the point and 100% right.

Sponsorship - I'm sure there have been examples in other sports where embedded sponsors have been removed. This should be the easy part to do. If it's 1M a year, then make up that 1M by charging RTE more for rights to the games. Charge more for the use of Croke Park for other events - an extra 1euro per concert ticket would go a long way towards hitting 1M a year. 3 concerts at 1eur per ticket more is approx 250K. Open sponsorship options for smaller local companies like LCC or First Derivative's. 1M to these companies I think would be entirely feasible. The point I'm making is that with a little bit of innovation, that lost sponsorship can be replaced by other means so there should be minimal impact to the organisation.

Insurance - I assume insurance is paid in advance for a period of time. That means there is time to look for alternative insurer's before the existing policies lapse. Why does all insurance have to come from 1 provider? What about each county/province procuring their own? It de-risks putting all your eggs in one basket AND might give you more insurance options as the potential liability is less due to a smaller number of assets being insured.

I wonder though, is there some sort of tax dodge (or brown envelope) reason for the sponsor also being the insurer?
Cost of insurance vs Income from Sponsorhip from the same company?

Either way, there is no reason that I can see that should tie the GAA indefinitely to any organisation and if there is, then that's a governance issue in itself. I think there's a rule somewhere that players, clubs or whoever can be disciplined for bringing the games into disrepute. Surely associating with and takings sponsorship from companies profiting from genocide is doing serious damage to the GAA reputation. GAA profiting from genocide by proxy.

Jarlath Burns has not had a good term. His handling of issues have been, imo, tainted with an air of superiority from him. His comments from the weekend on how difficult he had it in the troubles felt like deflection and an attempt to better his own public perception, but for me it was a disgusting line to cross. A lot of this feels like the Jarlath show and he's not coming out of it well, his legacy will not be a good one. I was genuinely happy to see him get the role as I thought he'd do a lot of good, but I am extremely disappointed in his leadership.