What do you make of this?

[muppet]

It was about players freedom to move rather than clubs deciding if they could move. It was also about the individual's rights rather than the associations right to decide the fate of the individual. Bosman wanted to move to France from Belgium, hence the ruling went that way.

No, it wasn't. The 'Bosman ruling' quite specifically says it was about movement across borders:

Article 48 of the EEC Treaty precludes the application of rules laid down by sporting associations, under which a professional footballer who is a national of one Member State may not, on the expiration of his contract with a club, be employed by a club of another Member State unless the latter club has paid to the former club a transfer, training or development fee.

Had Bosman being trying to move within Belgium, he would never have been able to take a case to the European Court. Now, there might be issues with the Constitution of Ireland. But European law does not apply here

Bosman was a technicality with, as you said eariler, far reaching implications. If Bosman simply moved to France and then moved back to Belgium to a different club 6 months later mission accomplished. Prior to the ruling he could not do so without his club's consent. Now the club has no say as long as he moves abroad. It doesn't matter when or where he comes back. Prior to Bosman - no choice, post Bosman - his choice. That is the point.

As for the democracy argument, that still doesn't allow anyone to over-ride the constitution, which is the legal issue being challenged. If you all vote to have me killed does that mean you can legally do it on it? If no why not?

[macdanger2]

And that would allow them to break the law (if it is found to do so) why? That is not a legal argument.

I don't think there's any question of them having broken a "law", it's question of them having infringed upon somebody's rights and the couter-argument is that 1) the right of the individual is not being infringed upon or 2) the rights of the community would trump the right of the individual in this case.

Correct - it's my opinon, rather than a legal argument as I'm certainly not a legal professional. I'm guessing what you are writing is also merely your opinion.

[muppet]

muppet, let's firm up the parameters of this discussion. As a person interested in the GAA (don't know if you're a member of a club), do you think the GAA should allow people to join whatever club/county they like?

The legal issue is whether or not it is unconstitutional.

As for your question, yes I do. However they should sign an agreement accepting the benefit of the training and facilities only in return for certain commitments. I do not agree that children not yet members of a club should be banned from having a choice and I do not believe the commitments mentioned previously should be for life. There is always a happy medium.

However in the absence of any happy medium we will be subject to a court ruling.

[muppet]

And that would allow them to break the law (if it is found to do so) why? That is not a legal argument.

I don't think there's any question of them having broken a "law", it's question of them having infringed upon somebody's rights and the couter-argument is that 1) the right of the individual is not being infringed upon or 2) the rights of the community would trump the right of the individual in this case.

Correct - it's my opinon, rather than a legal argument as I'm certainly not a legal professional. I'm guessing what you are writing is also merely your opinion.

Yes, it is merely an uneducated opinion.

This would be a case of inadvertently being in breach (if it happens which is by no means certain). I am not accusing any one of deliberately flouting the law.

I am thinking arguing that the rights of a Gaa club are de facto 'the rights of the community' would lose in court straight away. Communities impose rules via the constitution, Government and local Government etc. While we see the club as a major part of the community, legally it couldn't be considered the same thing. Rule 27 would suggest one reason why this could never happen.

[deiseach]

The legal issue is whether or not it is unconstitutional.

As for your question, yes I do. However they should sign an agreement accepting the benefit of the training and facilities only in return for certain commitments. I do not agree that children not yet members of a club should be banned from having a choice and I do not believe the commitments mentioned previously should be for life. There is always a happy medium.

However in the absence of any happy medium we will be subject to a court ruling.

Of course it's a constitutional issue. If the GAA is breaching their constitutional rights then the GAA's rules will have to  change. But that has yet to determined and saying that defending the status quo is a 'beal bocht' position is not fair. It's a perfectly legitimate position to take. As for there always being a happy medium, that isn't correct. There will always be situations where people will bump against the rules. Either you change those rules or you enforce them.

[Ciarrai_thuaidh]

Just wanted to point out lads, that this is most def not a case of the players wanting to go to a better/more prestigious club or that club poaching them...the club they want to play for(Listry) is far lower in standing than the club disputing the case, Firies...I'm not totally familiar with ?GAA rules here, but I was under the impression that if they went to school in a certain parish then that may have some bearing on things...aside from that, they are 11kms from Farranfore (where Firies pitch is) and 1.5km from Faha where Listry play...I mean, I know rules are rules,but this seems to be a tad harsh on the young lads involved.

[deiseach]

Just wanted to point out lads, that this is most def not a case of the players wanting to go to a better/more prestigious club or that club poaching them...the club they want to play for(Listry) is far lower in standing than the club disputing the case, Firies...I'm not totally familiar with ?GAA rules here, but I was under the impression that if they went to school in a certain parish then that may have some bearing on things...aside from that, they are 11kms from Farranfore (where Firies pitch is) and 1.5km from Faha where Listry play...I mean, I know rules are rules,but this seems to be a tad harsh on the young lads involved.

The rule is there to prevent big clubs poaching players, or at least that would be my reason for defending it. If people have rules in mind which would respect the need for small clubs to protect their patch while allowing players to move freely then I'm all ears. Until then, this is the best rule we have.

[macdanger2]

Just wanted to point out lads, that this is most def not a case of the players wanting to go to a better/more prestigious club or that club poaching them...the club they want to play for(Listry) is far lower in standing than the club disputing the case, Firies...I'm not totally familiar with ?GAA rules here, but I was under the impression that if they went to school in a certain parish then that may have some bearing on things...aside from that, they are 11kms from Farranfore (where Firies pitch is) and 1.5km from Faha where Listry play...I mean, I know rules are rules,but this seems to be a tad harsh on the young lads involved.

True, but the repercussions could be huge if this is upheld in court.

Are these young fellas expected to be something special or what? Or is there bad blood between the clubs? Surely they could have just sorted it out locally without this kind of sh*te

[muppet]

The legal issue is whether or not it is unconstitutional.

As for your question, yes I do. However they should sign an agreement accepting the benefit of the training and facilities only in return for certain commitments. I do not agree that children not yet members of a club should be banned from having a choice and I do not believe the commitments mentioned previously should be for life. There is always a happy medium.

However in the absence of any happy medium we will be subject to a court ruling.

Of course it's a constitutional issue. If the GAA is breaching their constitutional rights then the GAA's rules will have to  change. But that has yet to determined and saying that defending the status quo is a 'beal bocht' position is not fair. It's a perfectly legitimate position to take. As for there always being a happy medium, that isn't correct. There will always be situations where people will bump against the rules. Either you change those rules or you enforce them.

Hang on. I'm struggling by arguing different points with different posters.

We agree it is a legal issue. I'm not sure some of the others understand that. Community etc is getting confused with the Constitution.

By the 'beal bocht' comment I meant that to go to court and say ok we are breaking the law but it is because the the big fish will eat the little ones, won't stand up.

[muppet]

Just wanted to point out lads, that this is most def not a case of the players wanting to go to a better/more prestigious club or that club poaching them...the club they want to play for(Listry) is far lower in standing than the club disputing the case, Firies...I'm not totally familiar with ?GAA rules here, but I was under the impression that if they went to school in a certain parish then that may have some bearing on things...aside from that, they are 11kms from Farranfore (where Firies pitch is) and 1.5km from Faha where Listry play...I mean, I know rules are rules,but this seems to be a tad harsh on the young lads involved.

True, but the repercussions could be huge if this is upheld in court.

Are these young fellas expected to be something special or what? Or is there bad blood between the clubs? Surely they could have just sorted it out locally without this kind of sh*te

This would be my thinking.

[the Deel Rover]

the lads should be let play for whoever they want to. surely they must have been playing for some club (one of the lads is 14)   

[deiseach]

By the 'beal bocht' comment I meant that to go to court and say ok we are breaking the law but it is because the the big fish will eat the little ones, won't stand up.

Who says the GAA are breaking the law? That has yet to be determined

[muppet]

By the 'beal bocht' comment I meant that to go to court and say ok we are breaking the law but it is because the the big fish will eat the little ones, won't stand up.

Who says the GAA are breaking the law? That has yet to be determined

Now you are winding me up.

That was obviously hypothetical assuming a negative ruling and then playing the 'beal bocht' card.

[deiseach]

By the 'beal bocht' comment I meant that to go to court and say ok we are breaking the law but it is because the the big fish will eat the little ones, won't stand up.

Who says the GAA are breaking the law? That has yet to be determined

Now you are winding me up.

That was obviously hypothetical assuming a negative ruling and then playing the 'beal bocht' card.

Ah, No, I'm not winding you up but I think we were arguing at cross-purposes. If the GAA loses, then obviously the rules will need to change

[bcarrier]

There has to be more to this case than this...there are practical ways around the rule. Why dont they just register at an address within the correct parish.