Grants case to be reconvened at DRA

[Hardy]

This is from Of One Belief's latest email newsletter. It presents the case against the grants pretty comprehensively. It would be good if the pro-grant side were to present their case in similar fashion and we could debate from there. Any takers?


Because those who should be doing it aren't doing it, we've been trying to facilitate a discussion on the grants issue across the GAA. Over the past weekend the text below has been emailed to GAA Clubs, Counties and Provinces, not just in Ireland but round the world. Nearly 2,400 GAA units have now received the following:


"Speak Now ... Or Forever Hold Your Peace!"

We're All Adults Around Here

We have a particular view on the cash payments. We're totally against them. But we don't expect people to unquestioningly follow our line. We want you to discuss this issue and to reach a conclusion you're content with. We hope you'll share our view. This circular sets out why we oppose paying some GAA players to play gaelic games. It's going to every GAA Club and County. Circulate it to your colleagues/members. Read over it and make up your minds. What you'll read here isn't being discussed across the GAA as it should be. But the GAA is us as much as anyone else. Let's make our view count!

If Grants Are Paid To Inter-County GAA Players, then:

• Our Rule 11 ("a player ... shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games") is blown asunder


• Under EU law, the players' GAA activity will become an economic activity and be subject to EU commercial law: our fundamental GAA principles and rules about eligibility; transfers; and so on will go out the window. Players will be able to move as they/sponsors/whoever sees fit. And they'll hold "restraint of trade" powers over GAA Committees at Club and County level. It wouldn't happen? Look at the Bosman; Deliege; Meca-Medina; and Kolpac cases at the European Court of Justice.


• Our amateur status will be gone and it won't be coming back. Those behind the grants deal say it "copper-fastens" our amateur status. European commercial case law says something totally different. Which of them do you think will turn out to be right?


• For the first time in GAA history we will have two classes of GAA players/members ... those who pay for the games and those who are paid to play them.


• We'll have established the principle that inter-County players get money because of who they are. That process won't stop.


• There will be no moral nor legal justification for not paying the teams' backroom people ... then the team liaison people ... then our County Committee people ... then ...


• For the first time in GAA history single decisions by referees; umpires; linesmen; and fixture-makers will decide into whose pockets tens of thousands of euros will go


• Illicit "sponsors" will be able to offer teams cash prizes for winning things: the EU "economic activity" reality will mean we can't stop it


• Once the government pulls its funding (as it inevitably will) the GAA will have to pick up the bill


• Club players picked for their County will have a clear financial incentive not to risk injury at Club level. The Club/County divide will grow dramatically.


• Any chance we have of tackling the poison (and it is a poison) of paid managers in the GAA will be gone


• Volunteers will increasingly say: "I'm off!" They have in every other sport where payment was introduced. Just look at Club rugby in Ireland (if you can find it) ten years after pay-for-play came in.

And No, We Don't Have To Do This!

Let's remember a few basics that have got lost in the fog here:

• In the GAA nobody has to do anything! If players think the burdens are too great, they should walk away ... just like the rest of us should. We're volunteers, ALL of us!


• In the GAA there's no such thing as an "Inter-County player": we have Club players who happen to get picked for their County


• Amateurism and volunteerism are at the heart of what the GAA has been and done for 124 years: change that and you break the core GAA dynamic. And Ireland suffers disastrously as a result.

[Zulu]

I think there are a lot of unfounded doomsday predictions, repetitive points and dubious facts in that newsletter. I suppose I could put forward an indepth response but I think we've been down this road before. At this stage this issue just needs to go through whatever procedures it needs to go through before it can be settled one way or another.

[pintsofguinness]

the pro-grant side were to present their case in similar fashion and we could debate from there. Any takers?

Dont hold your breath.

[Rossfan]

If the GAA dont allow their players to accept the paltry Government Grants will the players strike recommence?

[deiseach]

I think there are a lot of unfounded doomsday predictions, repetitive points and dubious facts in that newsletter. I suppose I could put forward an indepth response but I think we've been down this road before. At this stage this issue just needs to go through whatever procedures it needs to go through before it can be settled one way or another.

Bit of wishful thinking there. Hard to see Mark Conway and co who, rightly or wrongly, believe this is a battle for the soul of the GAA, accepting that any result which allows the grants is the will of the membership. As for Dessie Farrell and co being so accepting of due process should it deny them their money . . .

[Zulu]

Insert Quote
Quote from: Zulu on March 05, 2008, 09:38:23 PM
I think there are a lot of unfounded doomsday predictions, repetitive points and dubious facts in that newsletter. I suppose I could put forward an indepth response but I think we've been down this road before. At this stage this issue just needs to go through whatever procedures it needs to go through before it can be settled one way or another.

Bit of wishful thinking there. Hard to see Mark Conway and co who, rightly or wrongly, believe this is a battle for the soul of the GAA, accepting that any result which allows the grants is the will of the membership. As for Dessie Farrell and co being so accepting of due process should it deny them their money . . .

Well Deiseach, if you're right then neither side accepts the GAA's procedures and if that's the case then we have far more serious problems than professionalism to contend with.

[stephenite]

I have some issues with the grant scheme (namely how the funds will be administered and distributed) however I am, in the main, content for the government to award these grants.

This issue is not really about the grants per se, but it's about the attempt of those involved in the GPA and the higher echelons of the GAA to push this through without paying any particular attention to the rules of the GAA.

Congress has to vote on this issue - and the association (and all it's members, including those with more sporting talent than others) will have to deal with the result of congress's decision. If that decision is not to the liking of the GPA they can pursue their grievances through the proper channels, as will the other members of the association should the vote go against their wishes (Conway, McAnallen etc.)

I don't feel the general public will tolerate another strike by amateurs.

[Hound]

There's so much rubbish in the One Belief statement that it just beggars belief that so many seemingly intelligent people take what they say as gospel, just because they don't like the GPA, rather than use their own brain or common sense.

Sheep sheep come home. The wolf is gone to Jericho..

[AZOffaly]

Hound, that statement you made could easily be reversed by swapping where the words GPA and Of One Belief appear.

Some people wouldn't trust the GPA as far as they could throw Dessie Farrell. Other people believe that Dessie has no interest in Pay for Play, and is purely a force for good in the GAA.

That's the way it is.

On the grants issue, I personally would be of a similar mind to stephenite, in that I don't mind the concept of the Government paying these lads as elite athletes, but I don't want the GAA getting their hands dirty in the distribution of the money. For the simple reason that when the Government decide they can't really justify this sort of outlay, the GPA will, in my opinion of course, ask the GAA to continue paying it.

For the record, my opinion of the statements in the 'Of One Belief' circular are:

If Grants Are Paid To Inter-County GAA Players, then:

    * Our Rule 11 ("a player ... shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games") is blown asunder
         This one is arguable in my mind. If the GAA are not paying them, does it count? I would suggest the image rights and Club Energise ads have already created precedent for external bodies paying money to players. Not to mention the elephant in the room in the shape of Appearance 'fees' or Manager payments

    * Under EU law, the players' GAA activity will become an economic activity and be subject to EU commercial law: our fundamental GAA principles and rules about eligibility; transfers; and so on will go out the window. Players will be able to move as they/sponsors/whoever sees fit. And they'll hold "restraint of trade" powers over GAA Committees at Club and County level. It wouldn't happen? Look at the Bosman; Deliege; Meca-Medina; and Kolpac cases at the European Court of Justice.
        Again, arguable, and you would probably have to take a test case to see exactly how it would be viewed. But I don't think the statement itself is rubbish, nor do I think it is an undeniable fact.

    * Our amateur status will be gone and it won't be coming back. Those behind the grants deal say it "copper-fastens" our amateur status. European commercial case law says something totally different. Which of them do you think will turn out to be right?
        This is an amalgamation of the first two. The one thing I would say is that I agree that this deal does not 'copper fasten' amateurism.

    * For the first time in GAA history we will have two classes of GAA players/members ... those who pay for the games and those who are paid to play them.
        rhetoric, but it has a basis in fact. I don't know if it's the first time though.

    * We'll have established the principle that inter-County players get money because of who they are. That process won't stop.
        I agree with this.

    * There will be no moral nor legal justification for not paying the teams' backroom people ... then the team liaison people ... then our County Committee people ... then
        This is a bit of a reach

    * For the first time in GAA history single decisions by referees; umpires; linesmen; and fixture-makers will decide into whose pockets tens of thousands of euros will go
        True, and I hadn't thought of it like that. Not sure of the 10s of thousands though

    * Illicit "sponsors" will be able to offer teams cash prizes for winning things: the EU "economic activity" reality will mean we can't stop it
        Why would the grants have any bearing on this whatsoever?

    * Once the government pulls its funding (as it inevitably will) the GAA will have to pick up the bill
        Bingo. This is what I fear most, and the can of worms which will be opened by that happening

    * Club players picked for their County will have a clear financial incentive not to risk injury at Club level. The Club/County divide will grow dramatically.
       Agree, although I don't think it will be a moajor issue. I'm sure some lads on the verge of the county panel will be careful about this

    * Any chance we have of tackling the poison (and it is a poison) of paid managers in the GAA will be gone
        This smacks a little of opportunism. Why did it take a players' grant to get them exercised about managers being paid.

    * Volunteers will increasingly say: "I'm off!" They have in every other sport where payment was introduced. Just look at Club rugby in Ireland (if you can find it) ten years after pay-for-play came in.
        Possibly, but club rugby is actually still going on, and they have their dedicated club members and ground etc. etc. That hasn't changed. The change has mostly been in the playing end of things where being affiliated with a club means very little unless you are coming back from injury, a lá Paul O'Connell and Young Munster. The (if you can find it) dig was childish and unnecessary.


That's my opinion anyway. I suppose there is a danger in all the bombast and doomsday rhetoric the central point will be lost. But at worst I would say that this document exaggerates some aspects of concern, but there are at least a few points in there that merit answers and debate. I would also like to run a test case by Europe on the financial aspects.

[quidnunc]

* Our Rule 11 ("a player ... shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games") is blown asunder
         This one is arguable in my mind. If the GAA are not paying them, does it count? I would suggest the image rights and Club Energise ads have already created precedent for external bodies paying money to players. Not to mention the elephant in the room in the shape of Appearance 'fees' or Manager payments
The key part of the rule is "the playing of Gaelic games". So Club Energise ads and appearance fees are already allowed, believe it or not. Manager payments aren't. It doesn't matter who pays, if you receive money fir playing a game you breach Rule 11.

    * Under EU law, the players' GAA activity will become an economic activity and be subject to EU commercial law: our fundamental GAA principles and rules about eligibility; transfers; and so on will go out the window. Players will be able to move as they/sponsors/whoever sees fit. And they'll hold "restraint of trade" powers over GAA Committees at Club and County level. It wouldn't happen? Look at the Bosman; Deliege; Meca-Medina; and Kolpac cases at the European Court of Justice.
        Again, arguable, and you would probably have to take a test case to see exactly how it would be viewed. But I don't think the statement itself is rubbish, nor do I think it is an undeniable fact.
Ok.

    * Our amateur status will be gone and it won't be coming back. Those behind the grants deal say it "copper-fastens" our amateur status. European commercial case law says something totally different. Which of them do you think will turn out to be right?
        This is an amalgamation of the first two. The one thing I would say is that I agree that this deal does not 'copper fasten' amateurism.
Snap.

    * For the first time in GAA history we will have two classes of GAA players/members ... those who pay for the games and those who are paid to play them.
        rhetoric, but it has a basis in fact. I don't know if it's the first time though.
I'm pretty certain it would be.

    * We'll have established the principle that inter-County players get money because of who they are. That process won't stop.
        I agree with this.
Snap.

    * There will be no moral nor legal justification for not paying the teams' backroom people ... then the team liaison people ... then our County Committee people ... then
        This is a bit of a reach
I disagree. Everyone starts to question, 'if he's worth that, why I am not?'. In fact it's already happening. And in fairness, it is partly to blame for some players' dissatisfaction.

    * For the first time in GAA history single decisions by referees; umpires; linesmen; and fixture-makers will decide into whose pockets tens of thousands of euros will go
        True, and I hadn't thought of it like that. Not sure of the 10s of thousands though
Ditto.

    * Illicit "sponsors" will be able to offer teams cash prizes for winning things: the EU "economic activity" reality will mean we can't stop it
        Why would the grants have any bearing on this whatsoever?
This goes back to the first point. If you accept the argument that it doesn't breach Rule 11 if the GAA doesn't pay the money, then it is effectively giving open season to outside parties to pay money to players to play.

    * Once the government pulls its funding (as it inevitably will) the GAA will have to pick up the bill
        Bingo. This is what I fear most, and the can of worms which will be opened by that happening
True. But it's not what I fear most.

    * Club players picked for their County will have a clear financial incentive not to risk injury at Club level. The Club/County divide will grow dramatically.
       Agree, although I don't think it will be a moajor issue. I'm sure some lads on the verge of the county panel will be careful about this
I'd say it will. Clubs don't like it when the players they've nurtured are made unavailable to them by county constraints.

    * Any chance we have of tackling the poison (and it is a poison) of paid managers in the GAA will be gone
        This smacks a little of opportunism. Why did it take a players' grant to get them exercised about managers being paid.
Disagree with you AZ. If players receive a grant which many believe breaches Rule 11, then it will be very hard to justify taking action against a paid manager. Why not exercised before now? I'd say because they thought our top officials were still keen to deal with this issue. Just a couple of years ago Nicky Brennan made ominous noises about this.

    * Volunteers will increasingly say: "I'm off!" They have in every other sport where payment was introduced. Just look at Club rugby in Ireland (if you can find it) ten years after pay-for-play came in.
        Possibly, but club rugby is actually still going on, and they have their dedicated club members and ground etc. etc. That hasn't changed. The change has mostly been in the playing end of things where being affiliated with a club means very little unless you are coming back from injury, a lá Paul O'Connell and Young Munster. The (if you can find it) dig was childish and unnecessary.
There are now far less players and volunteers in club rugby than there were before professionalism.

[AZOffaly]

I'm going to cut this down to the ones where we don't agree quidnunc, but I think we're not that far apart in our thinking.

* Our Rule 11 ("a player ... shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games") is blown asunder
         This one is arguable in my mind. If the GAA are not paying them, does it count? I would suggest the image rights and Club Energise ads have already created precedent for external bodies paying money to players. Not to mention the elephant in the room in the shape of Appearance 'fees' or Manager payments
The key part of the rule is "the playing of Gaelic games". So Club Energise ads and appearance fees are already allowed, believe it or not. Manager payments aren't. It doesn't matter who pays, if you receive money fir playing a game you breach Rule 11.

Alright, possibly it's semantics, and this semantic argument is the basis for a few of the points below where we disagree, or partially disagree. In my mind Appearence fees and image rights are because they play the game. i.e. Their 'marketability' or 'popularity' is a direct result of their playing inter county GAA. I think Rule 11 is breached already, on that basis, and needs to be reworded to explicitly allow or disallow such payments.  I suppose I would classify those payments as being 'in conjunction with the playing ...'.

    * For the first time in GAA history we will have two classes of GAA players/members ... those who pay for the games and those who are paid to play them.
        rhetoric, but it has a basis in fact. I don't know if it's the first time though.
I'm pretty certain it would be.

The reason I would say this is because of my point above, however I take your point that this is a measurable award based on their performance on the field of play. There is a direct correlation between how they do in the championship, and the money they receive. That is a first, granted. (no pun intended )

    * There will be no moral nor legal justification for not paying the teams' backroom people ... then the team liaison people ... then our County Committee people ... then
        This is a bit of a reach
I disagree. Everyone starts to question, 'if he's worth that, why I am not?'. In fact it's already happening. And in fairness, it is partly to blame for some players' dissatisfaction.

Fair enough. But I can't see many people outside the immediate environs of the county teams looking for money.

    * Illicit "sponsors" will be able to offer teams cash prizes for winning things: the EU "economic activity" reality will mean we can't stop it
        Why would the grants have any bearing on this whatsoever?
This goes back to the first point. If you accept the argument that it doesn't breach Rule 11 if the GAA doesn't pay the money, then it is effectively giving open season to outside parties to pay money to players to play.

And again, I would also refer to my 'interpretation' of Rule 11, and the existing scenarios. If outside people can already pay appearence fees, etc. then why would the grants make that any easier. For example, who could/would stop me if I decided to reward the Offaly footballers for getting relegated to Division 4 with an all expenses paid holiday to Clara Bog?

    * Club players picked for their County will have a clear financial incentive not to risk injury at Club level. The Club/County divide will grow dramatically.
       Agree, although I don't think it will be a moajor issue. I'm sure some lads on the verge of the county panel will be careful about this
I'd say it will. Clubs don't like it when the players they've nurtured are made unavailable to them by county constraints.

I know they don't like it, but that happens already with county managers reining in lads' availability to their clubs. I'm sure this will cause another angle on that, especially for lads who are just trying to break into the county squad, but I don't think it would be a dramatic change to what is already happening.

    * Any chance we have of tackling the poison (and it is a poison) of paid managers in the GAA will be gone
        This smacks a little of opportunism. Why did it take a players' grant to get them exercised about managers being paid.
Disagree with you AZ. If players receive a grant which many believe breaches Rule 11, then it will be very hard to justify taking action against a paid manager. Why not exercised before now? I'd say because they thought our top officials were still keen to deal with this issue. Just a couple of years ago Nicky Brennan made ominous noises about this.

Oh, I know the correlation between the perception of players getting money, ergo managers should get money, and in fairness a lot of the reason for player agitation is because they see managers getting money already. You have given a reason why the OOB lads were not vocal about manager payments until now, and I accept it up to a point, but if they really cared about that until now, they would have been shouting louder, earlier. I believe they have recognised that they would be attacked for hypocrisy if they don't mention it, and that is why it is there.

    * Volunteers will increasingly say: "I'm off!" They have in every other sport where payment was introduced. Just look at Club rugby in Ireland (if you can find it) ten years after pay-for-play came in.
        Possibly, but club rugby is actually still going on, and they have their dedicated club members and ground etc. etc. That hasn't changed. The change has mostly been in the playing end of things where being affiliated with a club means very little unless you are coming back from injury, a lá Paul O'Connell and Young Munster. The (if you can find it) dig was childish and unnecessary.
There are now far less players and volunteers in club rugby than there were before professionalism.

I agree to a certain extent, although I'm not sure about 'far less'. In fact on the playing side, I would say more amateurs than ever are playing club rugby at junior level. The rise in popularity due to Leinster and especially Munster tapping into the zeitgeist has spawned that. The AIL clubs have suffered a major blow in terms of prestige, as they have been supplanted by Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht, but those clubs are still doing alright, albeit with a lot of their nominal players being unavailable to them.

[DUBSFORSAM1]

* Our Rule 11 ("a player ... shall not accept payment in cash or in kind in conjunction with the playing of Gaelic games") is blown asunder
         This one is arguable in my mind. If the GAA are not paying them, does it count? I would suggest the image rights and Club Energise ads have already created precedent for external bodies paying money to players. Not to mention the elephant in the room in the shape of Appearance 'fees' or Manager payments
The key part of the rule is "the playing of Gaelic games". So Club Energise ads and appearance fees are already allowed, believe it or not. Manager payments aren't. It doesn't matter who pays, if you receive money fir playing a game you breach Rule 11.

The receipt of holidays/cars etc is an example of paying for players rather than a cash sum - though wasn't it Tyrone who gave cash instead of having to go on the team holiday this year?

    * Under EU law, the players' GAA activity will become an economic activity and be subject to EU commercial law: our fundamental GAA principles and rules about eligibility; transfers; and so on will go out the window. Players will be able to move as they/sponsors/whoever sees fit. And they'll hold "restraint of trade" powers over GAA Committees at Club and County level. It wouldn't happen? Look at the Bosman; Deliege; Meca-Medina; and Kolpac cases at the European Court of Justice.
        Again, arguable, and you would probably have to take a test case to see exactly how it would be viewed. But I don't think the statement itself is rubbish, nor do I think it is an undeniable fact.
Ok.

The case taken under EU law related to the fact that the Belgian Judo Association were also paying the person concerned and therefore their actions were judged to be in breach - why do people keep leaving this fundamental part out when they are talking about the case and only mention the Grants???

    * Our amateur status will be gone and it won't be coming back. Those behind the grants deal say it "copper-fastens" our amateur status. European commercial case law says something totally different. Which of them do you think will turn out to be right?
        This is an amalgamation of the first two. The one thing I would say is that I agree that this deal does not 'copper fasten' amateurism.
Snap.

To be honest the amateur status is gone when you have students getting grants, teams getting holidays, players getting cash on All-Stars/International Rules trips/Playing in US etc

    * For the first time in GAA history we will have two classes of GAA players/members ... those who pay for the games and those who are paid to play them.
        rhetoric, but it has a basis in fact. I don't know if it's the first time though.
I'm pretty certain it would be.

Again people getting holidays/expenses, student grants etc are effectively being paid

    * We'll have established the principle that inter-County players get money because of who they are. That process won't stop.
        I agree with this.
Snap.

See point above - that principle is already enshrined in holidays/expenses etc

    * There will be no moral nor legal justification for not paying the teams' backroom people ... then the team liaison people ... then our County Committee people ... then
        This is a bit of a reach
I disagree. Everyone starts to question, 'if he's worth that, why I am not?'. In fact it's already happening. And in fairness, it is partly to blame for some players' dissatisfaction.

Well administrators/managers/coaches/physios/refs/linesmen/security etc are all being paid......everyone just seems to want to stop players being paid

    * For the first time in GAA history single decisions by referees; umpires; linesmen; and fixture-makers will decide into whose pockets tens of thousands of euros will go
        True, and I hadn't thought of it like that. Not sure of the 10s of thousands though
Ditto.

The amounts are miniscule compared to the claims - but maybe it might ensure that more is done to ensure that refs/linesmen/umpires do their jobs right.

    * Illicit "sponsors" will be able to offer teams cash prizes for winning things: the EU "economic activity" reality will mean we can't stop it
        Why would the grants have any bearing on this whatsoever?
This goes back to the first point. If you accept the argument that it doesn't breach Rule 11 if the GAA doesn't pay the money, then it is effectively giving open season to outside parties to pay money to players to play.

There is nothing to stop this already.

    * Once the government pulls its funding (as it inevitably will) the GAA will have to pick up the bill
        Bingo. This is what I fear most, and the can of worms which will be opened by that happening
True. But it's not what I fear most.

This has been categorically agreed with all 3 parties that the GAA will not have to pick up the bill

    * Club players picked for their County will have a clear financial incentive not to risk injury at Club level. The Club/County divide will grow dramatically.
       Agree, although I don't think it will be a moajor issue. I'm sure some lads on the verge of the county panel will be careful about this
I'd say it will. Clubs don't like it when the players they've nurtured are made unavailable to them by county constraints.

Well considering the GPA put forward very good proposals as to how to split the season up and remove a lot of the club/county dispute I don't see this being an issue

    * Any chance we have of tackling the poison (and it is a poison) of paid managers in the GAA will be gone
        This smacks a little of opportunism. Why did it take a players' grant to get them exercised about managers being paid.
Disagree with you AZ. If players receive a grant which many believe breaches Rule 11, then it will be very hard to justify taking action against a paid manager. Why not exercised before now? I'd say because they thought our top officials were still keen to deal with this issue. Just a couple of years ago Nicky Brennan made ominous noises about this.

Well I would say that this has been going on for years and everyone kept quiet about it but now that the players might be getting something it has raised its head - hypocrisy in my view

    * Volunteers will increasingly say: "I'm off!" They have in every other sport where payment was introduced. Just look at Club rugby in Ireland (if you can find it) ten years after pay-for-play came in.
        Possibly, but club rugby is actually still going on, and they have their dedicated club members and ground etc. etc. That hasn't changed. The change has mostly been in the playing end of things where being affiliated with a club means very little unless you are coming back from injury, a lá Paul O'Connell and Young Munster. The (if you can find it) dig was childish and unnecessary.
There are now far less players and volunteers in club rugby than there were before professionalism.

Yes but in soccer and many other sports there are an awful lot more volunteers and in rugby it is spreading rapidly into areas that didn't have rugby before - if people love the game so much they won't leave it.

[AZOffaly]

DubsforSam,

I think we are all aware of each others' position on this at this stage, but there is one thing I want to ask you.

* Once the government pulls its funding (as it inevitably will) the GAA will have to pick up the bill
        Bingo. This is what I fear most, and the can of worms which will be opened by that happening
True. But it's not what I fear most.

This has been categorically agreed with all 3 parties that the GAA will not have to pick up the bill

Do you honestly believe that if this scheme runs for a year or two, or whatever, and the government pulls the plug on the money that the GPA will not look for someone else to fill that gap? If they do, then the only obvious candidate is the GAA. Whether they call the new arrangement a continuation of the grants scheme, or something different to make it look as if the agreement has been honoured, I simply cannot see the lads in the GPA saying, 'OK, fair enough. Sure it was grand while it lasted.'

Maybe I'm a pessimistic cynic, but I have a very hard time believing that that would be the outcome.