RG at arms length

[David McKeown]

Did people actually read the allegations about Gallagher from his wife and the sheer viciousness of the attacks and the sustained period they took place over? Some of these incidents have been corroborated by third parties including the wife of a former Fermanagh team mate of Gallaghers.

Proving these matters 10 years or 20 years after the fact is going to be a very difficult task so it  is the court of public opinion it all comes down to who you find more credible.

This wasn't just an allegation that he hit his his wife a slap one night when he came home drunk, which itself is unforgivable. These were allegations of sustained, viscous attacks over a number of years that left the woman hospitalized with broken bones on a number of occasions including times where he kicked her as she lay prone on the ground and another where he bit her.

The allegations are monstrous and it shouldn't rely on a court conviction in a matter that will be extremely difficult to convict on given the time lapse. I disagree strongly with Burns on other issues, particularly the current debacle with Allianz but he was absolutely right to intervene on Gallagher if he believed the allegations to be of a credible nature.

Horrible allegations but what has to be factored in is that they are denied. There has been 3 police investigations (1 in the south and 2 in the north) all of which recommended no prosecution. There's also been a family court case which has determined that RG was a suitable person for custody of the children.

None of us know what happened but it can't be the case that allegations made no matter how serious are considered in isolation.

How else do you consider them?

At a high level, the discussion is whether the GAA, or any sports organisation, could, should or are obliged to act on a rumour of certain types of criminal behaviour from a coach or manager. This becomes prickly in an acquittal/no charges scenario.

I think we all agree that while Burns had to do something, what he did was off the cuff and opened himself and the GAA up to legal risk. There should be a process, whether it be disrepute or safeguarding grounds.

You consider them against the background of everything that's known. You don't take any risks with individuals safety but you also don't treat every rumour as fact.

[Hand of God]

Did people actually read the allegations about Gallagher from his wife and the sheer viciousness of the attacks and the sustained period they took place over? Some of these incidents have been corroborated by third parties including the wife of a former Fermanagh team mate of Gallaghers.

Proving these matters 10 years or 20 years after the fact is going to be a very difficult task so it  is the court of public opinion it all comes down to who you find more credible.

This wasn't just an allegation that he hit his his wife a slap one night when he came home drunk, which itself is unforgivable. These were allegations of sustained, viscous attacks over a number of years that left the woman hospitalized with broken bones on a number of occasions including times where he kicked her as she lay prone on the ground and another where he bit her.

The allegations are monstrous and it shouldn't rely on a court conviction in a matter that will be extremely difficult to convict on given the time lapse. I disagree strongly with Burns on other issues, particularly the current debacle with Allianz but he was absolutely right to intervene on Gallagher if he believed the allegations to be of a credible nature.

I don't think anyone with any sense feels that if there is a grain of truth in this would think any other way. But lets take RG out of this, who decides this and which 'story' is ok and which isn't

It's not for Burns to do that, but he's opened up a can of worms in doing so, and whether he's right or wrong, going around and labeling people publicly isn't in his job description   

I don't get your point. Nobody is talking about jailing him here. We are talking about allowing a guy with those allegations hanging over him to be involved in an amateur and community led sporting organisation.

It's up to you whether you believe he was innocent or not in terms of the allegations but if there is any reason to believe they are credible, I do find them credible, then the GAA has every right to act as Burns did in this situation.


It's the sustained, vicious and horrific extent of what has been alleged against Gallagher than I think is fairly unique in the GAA world and is one I think Burns had to intervene in.

There's plenty of people who walk free in the streets for heinous crimes they have committed. There obviously was not enough evidence to convict or go to trial but this isn't a court of law, it's a sporting organisation and it is duty bound to protect itself from the damage a guy with those allegations could cause it.

[Milltown Row2]

Did people actually read the allegations about Gallagher from his wife and the sheer viciousness of the attacks and the sustained period they took place over? Some of these incidents have been corroborated by third parties including the wife of a former Fermanagh team mate of Gallaghers.

Proving these matters 10 years or 20 years after the fact is going to be a very difficult task so it  is the court of public opinion it all comes down to who you find more credible.

This wasn't just an allegation that he hit his his wife a slap one night when he came home drunk, which itself is unforgivable. These were allegations of sustained, viscous attacks over a number of years that left the woman hospitalized with broken bones on a number of occasions including times where he kicked her as she lay prone on the ground and another where he bit her.

The allegations are monstrous and it shouldn't rely on a court conviction in a matter that will be extremely difficult to convict on given the time lapse. I disagree strongly with Burns on other issues, particularly the current debacle with Allianz but he was absolutely right to intervene on Gallagher if he believed the allegations to be of a credible nature.

I don't think anyone with any sense feels that if there is a grain of truth in this would think any other way. But lets take RG out of this, who decides this and which 'story' is ok and which isn't

It's not for Burns to do that, but he's opened up a can of worms in doing so, and whether he's right or wrong, going around and labeling people publicly isn't in his job description   

I don't get your point. Nobody is talking about jailing him here. We are talking about allowing a guy with those allegations hanging over him to be involved in an amateur and community led sporting organisation.

It's up to you whether you believe he was innocent or not in terms of the allegations but if there is any reason to believe they are credible, I do find them credible, then the GAA has every right to act as Burns did in this situation.


It's the sustained, vicious and horrific extent of what has been alleged against Gallagher than I think is fairly unique in the GAA world and is one I think Burns had to intervene in.

There's plenty of people who walk free in the streets for heinous crimes they have committed. There obviously was not enough evidence to convict or go to trial but this isn't a court of law, it's a sporting organisation and it is duty bound to protect itself from the damage a guy with those allegations could cause it.

I'm not talking about jailing in any of my posts about this. What I have stated is Burns created a situation that has blown up in his face..

It is not up to him to decide as judge and jury, for me that is down to the clubs that would 'hire' someone as a coach  and has completed the Access NI or Southern Access application and if they have no areas of concern then why should it be then sent to someone else to 'make a call' ?

This applies to anyone, I've no knowledge of the happenings of this nor is it any of my business, but you are saying its duty bound, have they always done this? Or is this a personal problem, as said before there are plenty or examples  of others that have no issues

[Truthsayer]

Back in the 90,s there been more than a few lads playing who been in Jail for memberahip,explosives and on up. Dont remember much say then.

For real? You do know the difference between a criminal record and a political record? Or are you suggesting the political prisoners in the H block and other prisons were in fact ODCs?

Totally unrelated to topic more your post. Do you also put loyalist political prisoners in the same bracket?

My post is in response to that ludicrous previous post.
As happened loyalists were classed as political prisoners in the early release scheme of the GFA.
Reality much of their actions were sectarian war crimes with the targeting of innocent civilians.
I'm not sure how many of them rejoined their GAA clubs on release.
Debate is getting ridiculous. No way were political prisoners going to be barred from their GAA clubs... ffs!

As I said, unrelated just wanted to know that they were in fact in your view political prisoners, the targeting of innocent civilians happened on both side btw

Probably a discussion for a different thread. No doubt was terrible actions carried out on both sides. Loyalism had a policy of targeting Catholics. Republicans did not target Protestants because of their religion but there were atrocities carried out against civilians that went against that.

Keep taking that soup lad.

Great the way you highlighted half that sentence.
Do you know what that expression means? 👀
Sounds like you're a boy would have took the soup.

Your sentence is nonsense. You are saying they didn't target protestants apart from the times that they did. Ok.

Back in the 90,s there been more than a few lads playing who been in Jail for memberahip,explosives and on up. Dont remember much say then.

For real? You do know the difference between a criminal record and a political record? Or are you suggesting the political prisoners in the H block and other prisons were in fact ODCs?

Totally unrelated to topic more your post. Do you also put loyalist political prisoners in the same bracket?

My post is in response to that ludicrous previous post.
As happened loyalists were classed as political prisoners in the early release scheme of the GFA.
Reality much of their actions were sectarian war crimes with the targeting of innocent civilians.
I'm not sure how many of them rejoined their GAA clubs on release.
Debate is getting ridiculous. No way were political prisoners going to be barred from their GAA clubs... ffs!

As I said, unrelated just wanted to know that they were in fact in your view political prisoners, the targeting of innocent civilians happened on both side btw

Probably a discussion for a different thread. No doubt was terrible actions carried out on both sides. Loyalism had a policy of targeting Catholics. Republicans did not target Protestants because of their religion but there were atrocities carried out against civilians that went against that.

Keep taking that soup lad.

Great the way you highlighted half that sentence.
Do you know what that expression means? 👀
Sounds like you're a boy would have took the soup.

Your sentence is nonsense. You are saying they didn't target protestants apart from the times that they did. Ok.

You know exactly what I mean.

I honestly don't and have no time to debate childish nonsense. Glack.

Ditto... wasn't me dragged it off topic.

[trueblue1234]

I would agree with the above for the most part. However still believe the GAA handled it wrong. I think most people who look at the details of the case will be able to weight up the likelihood of it to be fabricated or not, and make a decision based on that. But it's a different matter for an organisation. They can't make a quick, decision based on likelyhood. It needed to be a much more structured and transparent process that is followed every time a similar case arises. I don't believe that was the case and think JB royalty f**ked up in how he got involved. That said. It put the GAA in a difficult position, and doing nothing, given the level and extent of the allegations would have met criticism as well. As DMcK outlined, a process similar to his post might have allowed the organisation to point to due process. Instead it just looked like they were making things up as they went along. Hopefully lessons learnt.

[Hand of God]

Did people actually read the allegations about Gallagher from his wife and the sheer viciousness of the attacks and the sustained period they took place over? Some of these incidents have been corroborated by third parties including the wife of a former Fermanagh team mate of Gallaghers.

Proving these matters 10 years or 20 years after the fact is going to be a very difficult task so it  is the court of public opinion it all comes down to who you find more credible.

This wasn't just an allegation that he hit his his wife a slap one night when he came home drunk, which itself is unforgivable. These were allegations of sustained, viscous attacks over a number of years that left the woman hospitalized with broken bones on a number of occasions including times where he kicked her as she lay prone on the ground and another where he bit her.

The allegations are monstrous and it shouldn't rely on a court conviction in a matter that will be extremely difficult to convict on given the time lapse. I disagree strongly with Burns on other issues, particularly the current debacle with Allianz but he was absolutely right to intervene on Gallagher if he believed the allegations to be of a credible nature.

I don't think anyone with any sense feels that if there is a grain of truth in this would think any other way. But lets take RG out of this, who decides this and which 'story' is ok and which isn't

It's not for Burns to do that, but he's opened up a can of worms in doing so, and whether he's right or wrong, going around and labeling people publicly isn't in his job description   

I don't get your point. Nobody is talking about jailing him here. We are talking about allowing a guy with those allegations hanging over him to be involved in an amateur and community led sporting organisation.

It's up to you whether you believe he was innocent or not in terms of the allegations but if there is any reason to believe they are credible, I do find them credible, then the GAA has every right to act as Burns did in this situation.


It's the sustained, vicious and horrific extent of what has been alleged against Gallagher than I think is fairly unique in the GAA world and is one I think Burns had to intervene in.

There's plenty of people who walk free in the streets for heinous crimes they have committed. There obviously was not enough evidence to convict or go to trial but this isn't a court of law, it's a sporting organisation and it is duty bound to protect itself from the damage a guy with those allegations could cause it.

I'm not talking about jailing in any of my posts about this. What I have stated is Burns created a situation that has blown up in his face..

It is not up to him to decide as judge and jury, for me that is down to the clubs that would 'hire' someone as a coach  and has completed the Access NI or Southern Access application and if they have no areas of concern then why should it be then sent to someone else to 'make a call' ?

This applies to anyone, I've no knowledge of the happenings of this nor is it any of my business, but you are saying its duty bound, have they always done this? Or is this a personal problem, as said before there are plenty or examples  of others that have no issues

He's president of the GAA. It's exactly his remit to do this and I'm imagine he took counsel from those in high positions in the GAA on this.

I personally agree with Rory Gallagher in effect being disbarred from the organisation. I don't know for certain whether he did or not but I do feel the allegations are very credible and I do feel they are of the most reprehensible nature so I think it's right he took the action he did on Gallagher here.

You disagree, that is fine but I don't think a guy with very credible allegations against him of multiple vicious and sustained attacks against him should be involved in high profile positions within the GAA.

England won't select Mason Greenwood for their national team despite him having no conviction on the allegations made against him. I also think that is the correct decision. I'd draw parallels with Gallagher on that.

[David McKeown]

Did people actually read the allegations about Gallagher from his wife and the sheer viciousness of the attacks and the sustained period they took place over? Some of these incidents have been corroborated by third parties including the wife of a former Fermanagh team mate of Gallaghers.

Proving these matters 10 years or 20 years after the fact is going to be a very difficult task so it  is the court of public opinion it all comes down to who you find more credible.

This wasn't just an allegation that he hit his his wife a slap one night when he came home drunk, which itself is unforgivable. These were allegations of sustained, viscous attacks over a number of years that left the woman hospitalized with broken bones on a number of occasions including times where he kicked her as she lay prone on the ground and another where he bit her.

The allegations are monstrous and it shouldn't rely on a court conviction in a matter that will be extremely difficult to convict on given the time lapse. I disagree strongly with Burns on other issues, particularly the current debacle with Allianz but he was absolutely right to intervene on Gallagher if he believed the allegations to be of a credible nature.

I don't think anyone with any sense feels that if there is a grain of truth in this would think any other way. But lets take RG out of this, who decides this and which 'story' is ok and which isn't

It's not for Burns to do that, but he's opened up a can of worms in doing so, and whether he's right or wrong, going around and labeling people publicly isn't in his job description   

I don't get your point. Nobody is talking about jailing him here. We are talking about allowing a guy with those allegations hanging over him to be involved in an amateur and community led sporting organisation.

It's up to you whether you believe he was innocent or not in terms of the allegations but if there is any reason to believe they are credible, I do find them credible, then the GAA has every right to act as Burns did in this situation.


It's the sustained, vicious and horrific extent of what has been alleged against Gallagher than I think is fairly unique in the GAA world and is one I think Burns had to intervene in.

There's plenty of people who walk free in the streets for heinous crimes they have committed. There obviously was not enough evidence to convict or go to trial but this isn't a court of law, it's a sporting organisation and it is duty bound to protect itself from the damage a guy with those allegations could cause it.

I'm not talking about jailing in any of my posts about this. What I have stated is Burns created a situation that has blown up in his face..

It is not up to him to decide as judge and jury, for me that is down to the clubs that would 'hire' someone as a coach  and has completed the Access NI or Southern Access application and if they have no areas of concern then why should it be then sent to someone else to 'make a call' ?

This applies to anyone, I've no knowledge of the happenings of this nor is it any of my business, but you are saying its duty bound, have they always done this? Or is this a personal problem, as said before there are plenty or examples  of others that have no issues

He's president of the GAA. It's exactly his remit to do this and I'm imagine he took counsel from those in high positions in the GAA on this.

I personally agree with Rory Gallagher in effect being disbarred from the organisation. I don't know for certain whether he did or not but I do feel the allegations are very credible and I do feel they are of the most reprehensible nature so I think it's right he took the action he did on Gallagher here.

You disagree, that is fine but I don't think a guy with very credible allegations against him of multiple vicious and sustained attacks against him should be involved in high profile positions within the GAA.

England won't select Mason Greenwood for their national team despite him having no conviction on the allegations made against him. I also think that is the correct decision. I'd draw parallels with Gallagher on that.

My issue with Burns involvement is that it undermined the associations safeguarding protocols and leads to a very dangerous precedent.

The RG DRA case exposed a fundamental flaw in the safeguarding protocols. The association sought to fix those. Those revised protocols were either not applied to RG or they were applied and Burns was dissatisfied with the outcome. Whichever scenario pertains Burns acted outside of those protocols and intervened. Regardless of his motivation for doing so which I am not privy to that to me undermines those protocols and processes.

You are happy to take the accusations at face value and seem to feel that the severity of them is such that RG should be deprived of any due process and should be subject to disbarment on the basis of those allegations alone. Whilst I won't criticise you for taking that approach it is not one that sits well with me. Particularly on the facts of the case as we know them to be. Primarily that there's been 3 police investigations, 2 prosecution decisions, 2 reviews and all of them have concluded having considered all the evidence that the case is unlikely to result in a prosecution. These decisions coming from notoriously risk adverse decision makers who in my experience tend to adopt a very liberal approach to the test for prosecution. On top of that we know there was a family case which would have involved social services, probably a Re L hearing and other professionals which has seemingly concluded that RG is an appropriate person to have residence of the children. If that's not an appropriate case for due process and procedurally fair and balanced process I don't know what is.

You cite the example of Greenwood. Strangely that is one where Manchester United followed a process similar to the process I suggested above. If anything that's an argument against Burns doing what he did.

Just to note again as I did at the start. Nothing I say should be seen as either defending RG or criticising the complainant. I don't know what happened and can make no determination on same. I just worry what precedent this whole situation has created.

[Hand of God]

My position is that I think Burns intervening in this process came to the right outcome - regardless of due process or whatever protocols might be needed. That for me is something going down the line.


What Gallagher has been accused for me is monstrous and there is no extenuating circumstance for those actions he has been accused of as it was sustained over a long number of years. There are only the extreme scale as far as active GAA members go. Only he and his wife will know the full story but the people who seem willing to give him the benefit of the doubt look to be hiding behind technicalities. The allegations are there, they will never go away and due to the commentary around it seem very well supported and credible.

I don't think Burns comes out badly of it, I think the clubs and counties still courting him with all this in the public domain come out horribly. It's a place Burns should never have needed to intervene but these clubs put him in that spot.

[Wildweasel74]

Well supported by what?  The point i was trying to make. their people playing, even recently guilty of manslaughter charges outside of the GAA, came back to play football again.Is Gallagher a bollix and possible hit his wife, looks more than probably, but in any form of life u cant go on % possiblity. Thats why companies, etc do risk assessments. Would the police hire u if u got a relative previous in a illegal organisation, no chance. So Burns or another assessed theres a risk here, but hasnt say what the excate risk is. We suspended men on steriods, but people with forthcoming serious court cases been allowed to play. Did they do risk assessments on them? Burns jumped head first into this one with Gallagher but other cases since, he disappeared.

[David McKeown]

My position is that I think Burns intervening in this process came to the right outcome - regardless of due process or whatever protocols might be needed. That for me is something going down the line.


What Gallagher has been accused for me is monstrous and there is no extenuating circumstance for those actions he has been accused of as it was sustained over a long number of years. There are only the extreme scale as far as active GAA members go. Only he and his wife will know the full story but the people who seem willing to give him the benefit of the doubt look to be hiding behind technicalities. The allegations are there, they will never go away and due to the commentary around it seem very well supported and credible.

I don't think Burns comes out badly of it, I think the clubs and counties still courting him with all this in the public domain come out horribly. It's a place Burns should never have needed to intervene but these clubs put him in that spot.

What technicalities are people hiding behind?

[DaleCooper]

"Following long running court proceedings in Family Courts in both jurisdictions, I was granted a full Residence Order in respect of our three young children on February 17 2023. This outcome was recommended by social services" [RG statement at time]

No one seems to realise she has v strong motive to ruin him, as she obviously views him as responsible for ruining her life.

If it isnt proven in a court of law its hearsay.

[imtommygunn]

Burns comes out of it very badly and I doubt he'd do the same thing again.

Anyone courting him comes out badly too but Burns comes out badly.

[tiempo]

Jarlath used the Gallagher family as the collateral to launch the Game Changer initiative

He blew a hole right through Game Changer confirming that its open to use for vindictive reporting and personal score settling

As a sports governing body the GAA has no business getting involved in the private lives of members

Where we all belong, unless Jarlath decides you dont

[trueblue1234]

"Following long running court proceedings in Family Courts in both jurisdictions, I was granted a full Residence Order in respect of our three young children on February 17 2023. This outcome was recommended by social services" [RG statement at time]

No one seems to realise she has v strong motive to ruin him, as she obviously views him as responsible for ruining her life.

If it isnt proven in a court of law its hearsay.

I remember reading a post by a social worker at the time that explained why him getting custody of the kids meant nothing with regards to the allegations and are to do his wife's own issues that she was dealing with. The fact he got custody of the kids has no bearing on the allegations. Anyone making a comment on it either way is definitely hearsay, but people can and will make a call on what they think is most likely. I certainly know what I think. Do I think Burns should have got involved, No. Do I think Derry  should have walked away and just said given the allegations it would be better for all parties to part ways, and for Naas to have more sense, then yes. I think that saves the GAA as a organisation getting involved in a situation that was extremely difficult given the lack of prosecution.

[Main Street]

My position is that I think Burns intervening in this process came to the right outcome - regardless of due process or whatever protocols might be needed. That for me is something going down the line.


What Gallagher has been accused for me is monstrous and there is no extenuating circumstance for those actions he has been accused of as it was sustained over a long number of years. There are only the extreme scale as far as active GAA members go. Only he and his wife will know the full story but the people who seem willing to give him the benefit of the doubt look to be hiding behind technicalities. The allegations are there, they will never go away and due to the commentary around it seem very well supported and credible.

I don't think Burns comes out badly of it, I think the clubs and counties still courting him with all this in the public domain come out horribly. It's a place Burns should never have needed to intervene but these clubs put him in that spot.

What technicalities are people hiding behind?

One technicality is that Gallagher was awarded full custody therefore that process was assumed to anoint him with an aura of innocence  re the allegations of spousal abuse.
In fact, the custody court process does not in any shape or form deal with those abuse accusations. especially "unproven" allegations. They are are not a part of that court's criteria. Yes Gallagher was determined fit  enough to be awarded full custody, in the context of an intelligent caring responsible father being represented by a sharp legal team and faced with a mother, a clearly unfit mother with evident addiction issues and also clearly a woman beaten down.