Páraic Duffy speaks out!

[Logan]

I think there is a number of points here.

The Philosophy
I have no problem paying an expert in their field for their knowledge. If a coach can come in and do something I can't or can train a team very well and bring in something I or my club members can't do then I'll pay them.
Why? Because I believe in paying good people for good work.
Why should a physio and doctor get paid on the day of a match or to come to training but a trainer can't?

If I asked a plumber to come round to the house I wouldn't expect it done for nothing.

There are two sides to this. Either you believe you can discriminate against players and managers of lower teams in favour of a senior manager or you don't. I don't.

Do you mean in a club or in a county?

Why should you only pay the plumber that goes to the house of the 1st team but expect the plumbers that go to the junior team, minor team, U-16 team, U-14 team, U-12 team and all the schools team to do it for nothing?

Well I never said it had anything to do with levels - but the fact is that the bigger the club the more there is to win.
It's simple fact of life.
The clubs in higher leagues/divisions have more money

Quality vs Chancers
NOW ... the problem arises when you get chancers in trying to do something and messing it up - they are the mercenary managers

As for the question as to whether its a major problem - it isn't. If someone wants to pay for something - let them.

Padraic Duffy seems to think it is the biggest problem. Some here don't agree with that but still feel it is a problem. Would you agree with the following? If some one wants to pay the players for playing - let them.  

Paying players is different in that they are not providing a service

Trainers vs Managers
Trainers generally do more work and these guys range from the expert and skilled to a Stevie Wonder idiot who hardly knows what a ball is.
Personally I'd paid a trainer but not a Manager unless it was a legendary man who could make a massive difference.

So it is all about buying success? Is that what the Gaa is about?

No that's not gaurenteed.
It's about paying for quality.
And as long as people want something badly enough money will be spent to try and get it

A problem?
1. It's not a problem - what is it doing?
2. It's impossible to prove or disprove - Ireland is the home of 'cash in hand'
3. You can't stop it - it's called capitalism

1. It undermines the amateur ethos not to mention putting a drain on the resources of clubs and counties.

I agree completely that it's against the amateur ethos 

2. Are you serious?

Yes - HOW can you prove that Manager A is getting 50 grand a year from some group of business people? It's not possible. There would be more shady dealings and money transactions. Christ they couldn't stop Haughey getting millions - they'll not stop a few county coaches taking money under the table.

3. See 2

Yes - but the fact remains as long as people want something they'll pay for it - including the county title or Sam

A bigger problem facing the GAA is stoping our kids going to play Rugby and Soccer
Now there's something to be concerned with.

The Gaa is and has always been the biggest sporting organisation in the country. Most of us here played soccer even if only using two jumpers or a gate. We survived and so did the Gaa. It is almost traditional to see threats to the Gaa everywhere, televised games, Saturday football, Italia '90 and now rugby. The Gaa is a lot more resilient than even it's supporter give it credit for. That is not to be complacent as you can't take it for granted but there is no need for paranoia.

It's not paranoia - it's a fact of life.
With greater exposure to soccer and otehr sports on the grass roots the GAA are facing a bigger battle to retain youngsters in the game.
You cna't have it both ways - be open to other sports and complain when professional attitudes develop in the GAA.




I think you need to look at what I said in a different light.
I don't like the fact some people get paid and some don't
I admire the amateruism of the GAA
But must recognise that the limit has been reached.

Like I said before if we all decide to remain amateur - great - lets' do that and stop paying managers and players.
BUT don't act like it is now - deny and try and hide it
Come on out and just admit it and be up front.

[Zulu]

There are two sides to this. Either you believe you can discriminate against players and managers of lower teams in favour of a senior manager or you don't. I don't.

Why should you only pay the plumber that goes to the house of the 1st team but expect the plumbers that go to the junior team, minor team, U-16 team, U-14 team, U-12 team and all the schools team to do it for nothing?

Managers of lower teams aren't being discriminated against, in fact it is often at junior level where the money is to be made, as for undergae teams well I've already said if you are going to spend money on coaches it is there you should be doing it but the reality is managing at adult level requires more time, committment and tactical nous. As for players well I've never heard a coach turn around and tell a club committee to get rid of last years players and get in new ones even if it means paying him. I know of quite few clubs where players have demanded their committee get a good coach and pay him if needs be.

Padraic Duffy seems to think it is the biggest problem. Some here don't agree with that but still feel it is a problem. Would you agree with the following? If some one wants to pay the players for playing - let them.  

If a wealthy benefactor was willing to pay players in a certain county/club I'd have no problem with it at all. I don't believe in amateurism because I believe you should only play for the love of the game, I believe in it because a pro game would cost too much and we'd lose counties and possibly the game of hurling. But if everything else stayed the same and every IC player woke up on Christmas day with a cheque for €50K under the tree from a wealthy benefactor than good luck to them.

So it is all about buying success? Is that what the Gaa is about?

The point has already been made that outside coaches don't guarantee success (at county level anyway) but regardless of teh quality of the coach it is the quality of the players that ultimately decides success or failure.

1. It undermines the amateur ethos not to mention putting a drain on the resources of clubs and counties.
2. Are you serious?
3. See 2

No it doesn't the amateur ethos has long since been shelved, if you object to coaches getting paid then you surely object to Duffy getting paid, is that true?

As for points 2 & 3 i'd like to hear how you propose to catch clubs and counties who break the rule.

[Hardy]

I haven't much time to contribute to the debate these days, but just very quickly, on scanning through this, I have seen no response to the question "why should managers be treated differently to all other service providers?". Can anyone tell me why it's OK to pay physios, doctors, bus drivers, psychologists, grass cutters, dieticians and any number of other providers of services to the players, but not managers? Why are managers uniquely lumped in with the players as part of the playing team, while all other service providers are seen as external to the playing group and as perfectly legitimate recipients of fees for their services?

The argument that allowing managers to be paid legitimises the demands of players to be paid is nonsense, in my opinion. If that's the case, why does the payment of a fee to a physiotherapist on match day not legitimise the demands of players to be paid on match day?

Someone asked what it would mean for the ethos of the games if the wealthiest clubs/counties could buy success by being able to afford the best managers. Leaving aside BC's point that the most expensive managers are not necessarily the most successful, the question is reasonable. The only thing is, I've never heard anyone ask if it's unfair that the wealthiest clubs can afford the best grounds, best clubhouses, best training facilities, best fitness backup, etc. Again - why single out managers? At least in the case of managers there's a simple solution to that problem, as suggested by Seanie - bring it into the open and regulate/cap the payments. They do this successfully in other sports.

Pay for play is not possible without ruining the entire basis of the GAA and the games - mainly because it's only possible (a) at the expense and to the ruination of everything else the association spends its money on and (b) with a "premier league" type structure with, at the very most, ten teams. This stated goal of the GPA must be kept in mind at all times and resisted at all costs. However, the payment of managers is irrelevant to it, in my opinion, if only it was brought into the open and treated in the same manner as all other payments to all other providers of services to the players.

[Zulu]

What do you mean?

[muppet]

I haven't much time to contribute to the debate these days, but just very quickly, on scanning through this, I have seen no response to the question "why should managers be treated differently to all other service providers?". Can anyone tell me why it's OK to pay physios, doctors, bus drivers, psychologists, grass cutters, dieticians and any number of other providers of services to the players nut not managers? Why are managers uniquely lumped in with the players as part of the playing team, while all other service providers are seen as external to the playing group and as perfectly legitimate recipients of fees for their services?

The argument that allowing managers to be paid legitimises the demands of players to be paid is nonsense, in my opinion. Why does the payment of a fee to a physiotherapist on match day not legitimise the demand of players to be paid on match day?

Someone asked what it would mean for the ethos of the games if the wealthiest clubs/counties could buy success by being able to afford the best managers. Leaving aside BC's point that the most expensive managers are not necessarily the most successful, the point is reasonable. The only thing is, I've never heard anyone ask if it's unfair that the wealthiest clubs can afford the best grounds, best clubhouses, best training facilities, best fitness backup, etc. Again - why single out managers? At least in the case of managers there's a simple solution to that problem, as suggested by Seanie - bring it into the open and regulate/cap the payments. They do this successfully in other sports.

Pay for play is not possible without ruining the entire basis of the GAA and the games - mainly because it's only possible (a) at the expense and to the ruination of everything else the association spends its money on and (b) with a "premier league" type structure with, at the very most ten teams. This stated goal of the GPA must be kept in mind at all times and resisted at all costs. However, the payment of managers is irrelevant to it, in my opinion, if only it was brought into the open and treated in the same manner as all other payments to all other providers of services to the players.

Physio - Full time job, you have to pay to get one unless you are lucky.
Doctor - See Physio
Bus Driver - You don't pay for the bus and you have to hitch
Psychologist- See Physio
Grass cutters - An amateur association should manage without paying them
Dietician - See Physio

With the exception of the grass cutter and to some extent the bus driver, all the others are professional. If the Gaa pays it's managers then the managers are professional. Call a spade a spade. You support professionalism among managers.

To answer Zulu, Pádraic Duffy differs from managers because it is a full time job for him. I'd rather it was for nothing but he would have no income then and that is obviously not sustainable. A manager can have and usually does have a full time job.

Duffy is a professional administrator. There are obviously other professional administrator not least county secretaries in certain counties. You are now arguing for (since it is done clandestinely at the moment) professional managers. That leaves one last step.

I told this story here before but I spoke with a well known former county player about the game. He told me about a manager that interviewed for the county job (non-Connacht team) and this manager gave a passionate tearful speech about restoring pride to the county. The county board (obviously unimpressed) asked how much that pride would cost. €150 per training session with double that per game. He didn't get the job but was shortly appointed to a neighbouring county. The player asked me which manager did I think would command more respect, a guy doing it for nothing or the guy I just mentioned?

To answer Logan, pay for play is Capitalism, is that what you want?

[Zulu]

What do you mean?

The question was empty if you could not prepare a different response to what was a yes/no answer as your reply would have been the same if I said "no, I don't".

You're losing me there Fionntamhnach but to elaborate on my original question, what I meant by asking it and my subsequent response served to underline the point was that many complain about paid coaches but aren't willing to do the job themselves. And it is this reason that some fairly poor coaches get paid for doing some pretty uninspiring work, so if people feel that coaches shouldn't be paid well then they should go do it themselves. That is the only real solution.

I can see where yourself and Muppet are coming from but I disagree that just because a guy doesn't do something as a full time job that he then doesn't deserve pay. If you bring a level of committment and expertise to a position the fact that you aren't employed in that area by day shouldn't preclude you from being paid for doing it in your spare time. To take your argument a bit further, you could say that a PE teacher or fitness instructor should get paid for coaching a football team in their spare time but an accountant shouldn't, even though the accountant could be the superior coach, that doesn't make sense.

10 - 15 years ago most coaches came from within the club and players didn't demand much from them, a training session in Tyrone probably wasn't all that different from a training session in Clare. Now it is very different, in the past two years I know a coach who has been approached by 6 clubs in 3 different counties about coaching their team, I didn't do any of them by the way, but it just goes to show the dificulty in finding coaches and how far clubs are willing to cast the net.

Once we started paying administrators we ceased to be an amateur organization, and it shouldn't be forgotten that players are also getting far more from the GAA than they did 15 years ago. Gear and medical expenses are the norm, bonding trips and foreign holidays are also on the cards and at the highest level sponsered cars and promotional payments are available. Some coaches are getting paid and certainly some of them deserve the money IMO, remember many of teh IC coaches are actually professionals in their field just like the physios and are as entitled to expect payment for their expertise.

[Hardy]

Call a spade a spade. You support professionalism among managers.

Of course. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my posts, but what else could they have meant?

I don't see the relevance of the fact that most managers are part time, while the other services I mentioned are provided, in general, by people whose full-time job the service is. How does that make payment to managers unacceptable? Should part-timers work for nothing? In any case, the physios, etc. are usually also working for the team on a part-time basis, just like the manager.

Fionntamhnach - you have a reasonable argument, but it seems to me you go to great lengths to search for differences between managers and other service providers and to qualify the manager as part of the team, while every other contributor to the effort to get the team on the pitch in the best possible shape is regarded as external to the team. I'm not convinced.

[muppet]

Call a spade a spade. You support professionalism among managers.

Of course. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my posts, but what else could they have meant?

I don't see the relevance of the fact that most managers are part time, while the other services I mentioned are provided, in general, by people whose full-time job the service is. How does that make payment to managers unacceptable? Should part-timers work for nothing? In any case, the physios, etc. are usually also working for the team on a part-time basis, just like the manager.

Fionntamhnach - you have a reasonable argument, but it seems to me you go to great lengths to search for differences between managers and other service providers and to qualify the manager as part of the team, while every other contributor to the effort to get the team on the pitch in the best possible shape is regarded as external to the team. I'm not convinced.

Hardy, as a lot of posters on this thread are articulate and know how to argue a case, this debate tends to go for the most logical and defendable lines that we can identify to support our cases.

The simplest explanation for my position is, unfortunately for me, the least persuasive but here goes.

To my mind a manager is a Gaa man giving his time to the Gaa exactly the same way as the players are, the fellas who drove me to U-12 games, the guys who line the pitches and whoever it was that had tea for us at half time. I never took much notice of those people but the club would not have worked without them.

A physio, doctor dietician come from outside the Gaa. They can arrive with no connection to the Gaa. Their services are transferable to soccer, rugby or synchronised swimming and they can have achieved that without ever hearing of the Gaa. They do not have to be Gaa people with a Gaa background. The Gaa can manage (sorry) without them and for a long part of it's history it did.

The Gaa manager is a product of the Gaa. He has benefited from all of the Gaa people I mentioned above who give their time for free.

The professionalism argument might be more persuasive IMHO but the above is what I really feel.

 

[Zulu]

I don't think anyone could argue against the basic rational of that post Muppet but I think you can look at it differently. Namely the players are brought up in the club and therefore have an attachment to it, and everything is done for their benefit, the pitch developments, the new gear, the meals after big games, the tea and sandwhiches after training, the buses to games, the bonding sessions not mention the adulation they can get in their locality if they are successful. so I would argue that players get alot out of their involvement in the GAA and as local lads they want to play with their home club. But I don't think a manager from outside the locality should be expected to put in the massive effort that is required for little or nothing, he has basically been asked in to do a job so I think it is fair that he gets paid for it.

IMO there is too much involved and too much demanded of a coach to expect him to come into a club he has no connection with and to do it for free.

[Hardy]

Call a spade a spade. You support professionalism among managers.

Of course. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my posts, but what else could they have meant?

I don't see the relevance of the fact that most managers are part time, while the other services I mentioned are provided, in general, by people whose full-time job the service is. How does that make payment to managers unacceptable? Should part-timers work for nothing? In any case, the physios, etc. are usually also working for the team on a part-time basis, just like the manager.

Fionntamhnach - you have a reasonable argument, but it seems to me you go to great lengths to search for differences between managers and other service providers and to qualify the manager as part of the team, while every other contributor to the effort to get the team on the pitch in the best possible shape is regarded as external to the team. I'm not convinced.

Hardy, as a lot of posters on this thread are articulate and know how to argue a case, this debate tends to go for the most logical and defendable lines that we can identify to support our cases.

The simplest explanation for my position is, unfortunately for me, the least persuasive but here goes.

To my mind a manager is a Gaa man giving his time to the Gaa exactly the same way as the players are, the fellas who drove me to U-12 games, the guys who line the pitches and whoever it was that had tea for us at half time. I never took much notice of those people but the club would not have worked without them.

A physio, doctor dietician come from outside the Gaa. They can arrive with no connection to the Gaa. Their services are transferable to soccer, rugby or synchronised swimming and they can have achieved that without ever hearing of the Gaa. They do not have to be Gaa people with a Gaa background. The Gaa can manage (sorry) without them and for a long part of it's history it did.

The Gaa manager is a product of the Gaa. He has benefited from all of the Gaa people I mentioned above who give their time for free.

The professionalism argument might be more persuasive IMHO but the above is what I really feel.

 

It's a good argument, too and probably is the right explanation for why people feel it's wrong to pay managers.

[Logan]

I haven't much time to contribute to the debate these days, but just very quickly, on scanning through this, I have seen no response to the question "why should managers be treated differently to all other service providers?". Can anyone tell me why it's OK to pay physios, doctors, bus drivers, psychologists, grass cutters, dieticians and any number of other providers of services to the players nut not managers? Why are managers uniquely lumped in with the players as part of the playing team, while all other service providers are seen as external to the playing group and as perfectly legitimate recipients of fees for their services?

The argument that allowing managers to be paid legitimises the demands of players to be paid is nonsense, in my opinion. Why does the payment of a fee to a physiotherapist on match day not legitimise the demand of players to be paid on match day?

Someone asked what it would mean for the ethos of the games if the wealthiest clubs/counties could buy success by being able to afford the best managers. Leaving aside BC's point that the most expensive managers are not necessarily the most successful, the point is reasonable. The only thing is, I've never heard anyone ask if it's unfair that the wealthiest clubs can afford the best grounds, best clubhouses, best training facilities, best fitness backup, etc. Again - why single out managers? At least in the case of managers there's a simple solution to that problem, as suggested by Seanie - bring it into the open and regulate/cap the payments. They do this successfully in other sports.

Pay for play is not possible without ruining the entire basis of the GAA and the games - mainly because it's only possible (a) at the expense and to the ruination of everything else the association spends its money on and (b) with a "premier league" type structure with, at the very most ten teams. This stated goal of the GPA must be kept in mind at all times and resisted at all costs. However, the payment of managers is irrelevant to it, in my opinion, if only it was brought into the open and treated in the same manner as all other payments to all other providers of services to the players.

Physio - Full time job, you have to pay to get one unless you are lucky.
Doctor - See Physio
Bus Driver - You don't pay for the bus and you have to hitch
Psychologist- See Physio
Grass cutters - An amateur association should manage without paying them
Dietician - See Physio

Add:
Successful/good Manager = Part Time Job

With the exception of the grass cutter and to some extent the bus driver, all the others are professional. If the Gaa pays it's managers then the managers are professional. Call a spade a spade. You support professionalism among managers.

Yes correct.

To answer Zulu, Pádraic Duffy differs from managers because it is a full time job for him. I'd rather it was for nothing but he would have no income then and that is obviously not sustainable. A manager can have and usually does have a full time job.

Obviously at some stage the GAA decided to run things better the job needed to be done full time and to get the best qualified people to do the best job the needed to pay someone.

Obviously at some stage the GAA decided in certain counties thought that to run a team better and be more successful it needed to get the best qualified people to do the best job they needed to pay someone.

Duffy is a professional administrator. There are obviously other professional administrator not least county secretaries in certain counties. You are now arguing for (since it is done clandestinely at the moment) professional managers. That leaves one last step.

Possibly - BUT the country nor the sport can't sustain it

I told this story here before but I spoke with a well known former county player about the game. He told me about a manager that interviewed for the county job (non-Connacht team) and this manager gave a passionate tearful speech about restoring pride to the county. The county board (obviously unimpressed) asked how much that pride would cost. €150 per training session with double that per game. He didn't get the job but was shortly appointed to a neighbouring county. The player asked me which manager did I think would command more respect, a guy doing it for nothing or the guy I just mentioned?

Very simple answer - the coach who does a good job and gets paid generally gets more respect
Do something for free and you get less respect than if you charged them.

To answer Logan, pay for play is Capitalism, is that what you want?

That is not capitalism.
You do not pay for the privilege to play football - it's not a service.

Capitalism is where you pay for something like a service and the highest price gets it.
i.e. Getting a Manager

Now if we went down the route of buying players that would be capitalism.

[Logan]

My basic point is this ...

A manager or coach to do his job properly needs to spend a lot of time preparing themselves etc and going to courses and learning. To be successful it's not longer sufficient to be just able to do the few laps a few drills and win. To support children and adults in training we need to pay people for the inordinate amount of time they are now spending away from family and friends to improve.

Paying managers does not guarantee it - but it does help get closer to better quality and pays those people for their time.

[Zulu]

While i'm sure the treasurer's job is time consuming, it is nowhere near as time consuming as the managers job and anyway you wouldn't get one of the best accountants in your county to come in and do your books for nothing if he had no connection with your club. Do you think an experienced manager who is bringing expertise into your club, should do so for nothing even though he has no connection to your club?

[muppet]

While i'm sure the treasurer's job is time consuming, it is nowhere near as time consuming as the managers job and anyway you wouldn't get one of the best accountants in your county to come in and do your books for nothing if he had no connection with your club. Do you think an experienced manager who is bringing expertise into your club, should do so for nothing even though he has no connection to your club?

Zulu, an honest (not loaded) question.

Should all Gaa county and club managers be paid?

If not where do you draw the line?

[Zulu]

Well to give a simple answer to the first part of your question then No I don't think they should all be paid. If you are managing your own club I don't think you should be paid because I think you are putting back into a club which has given you more and I think as a clubman you should be happy to make whatever sacrifices are necessary for your club. However if you have no connection to the club and are bringing something to the table (e.g. sports related academic qualifications, vast experience, proven track record etc.) then I think it is reasonable enough if you get some payment for that.

At county level I feel every manager has a good argument for payment, the time, effort, pressure and committment is huge and I really don't think it is unreasonable for them to get something for it.

I must admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with anyone getting paid for their involvement in the GAA but I think that the managers job (at county level at least) has gone like the administrators jobs, i.e. too big for a man to do without some payment.