The GAA at it again

GuanYin

Orizio wrote: »

I'm basing this off what you said - are you familiar with the Revisionist poistion on the GAA and Irish culture/history in general?

Unless i misunderstood, you stating your opinions were based on what a ieboards smod has told you of the GAA?

So I'm not confused, please do tell me where exactly you are getting 'your' opinions on the GAA from - beyond that one ieboards moderator of course.

I said that I got a perspective of the GAA's place in Irish history.

I never said I got an opinion, or indeed, anyone gave me an opinion.

That is your assumption.

It what is in the post you qouted, which seemingly you didn't read. I don't repeat myself so do go back and read it.

And no, opening Croker wasn't one of the examples.

Well then, I guess you're not going to convince me.

You see here in lies your problem as a GAA supporter.

Instead of trying to positively influence me, you are mis-representing, condescending and patronizing me and basically doing whatever you can to belittle my opinon like it doesn't matter.

Which is why, I believe, there is such a negative view of your organization.

In any case, this is VERY off topic.

Back on the milltown issue. I don't want to see another comment on my opinion of the GAA, it is as informed as it can be, if you want it changed, do it in a positive manner.

elshambo

GuanYin wrote: »

You see here in lies your problem as a GAA supporter.

Instead of trying to positively influence me, you are mis-representing, condescending and patronizing me and basically doing whatever you can to belittle my opinon like it doesn't matter.

Which is why, I believe, there is such a negative view of your organization.

AAAHHH Snap!!! as i believe our American friends would say!

Yavvy

So I haven seen any of the people who are outraged at the GAA's actions comment on the statement from Miltown/Castlemaine GAA. I felt it was a reasonable response and while I think most will agree it was handled very poorly
this does does go some way to explain their motives and why in the long run it should be better for the community.

( last time off topic promise)

GuanYin wrote: »

my opinion of the GAA, it is as informed as it can be, if you want it changed, do it in a positive manner.

Sincerely, I would like an opportunity to change your opinion in a positive way at some stage in the near future

Orizio

Well then, I guess you're not going to convince me.

Did you or did you not read my post? Any chance in you actually debate with me, disagreeing with me or so on, or have you just been wasting my time?

Instead of trying to positively influence me, you are mis-representing, condescending and patronizing me and basically doing whatever you can to belittle my opinon like it doesn't matter.

Nonsense, nonsense and nonsense - you are the one refusing to debate with me in any meaningful manner.

Which is why, I believe, there is such a negative view of your organization.

There is? Says who? The soccer posters on the ieboards forum? :P The people of Ireland seem to disagree.

In any case, this is VERY off topic.

This thread has been off-topic for days.

Back on the milltown issue. I don't want to see another comment on my opinion of the GAA, it is as informed as it can be, if you want it changed, do it in a positive manner.

I have - I have tried to debate with you, and made repeated points that you have repeatedly ignored. If you wish to gain a greater perspective on the GAA then debate with me, rather then ignoring my points and then attacking me. Seemingly you have a 'perspective' on the GAA that is very limited and one-sided, and your attitude is of a person completely unwilling to improve your understanding of the GAA through debate. Instead of debating with me, you would rather complain and resort to low brow pettiness as clear from your above post.

Regardless, I'll make a mental note to not make any future attempt to 'debate' with you, since seemingly its impossible. Good day.

Orizio

Yavvy wrote: »

So I haven seen any of the people who are outraged at the GAA's actions comment on the statement from Miltown/Castlemaine GAA. I felt it was a reasonable response and while I think most will agree it was handled very poorly
this does does go some way to explain their motives and why in the long run it should be better for the community.

( last time off topic promise)


Sincerely, I would like an opportunity to change your opinion in a positive way at some stage in the near future

I'm afraid its impossible - if you want your arguments to be ignored then feel free to 'debate' with him, otherwise forget about it. No point debating with some unwilling to debate.

Yavvy

I think thats unfair to GuanYin

You may not have seen the angel she has approached this from - part of the pre formed opnions are totally understandable. and while changing her opinion may prove impossible it I doubt it will be because of ignorance or unwillingness to talk

therecklessone

Yavvy wrote: »

So I haven seen any of the people who are outraged at the GAA's actions comment on the statement from Miltown/Castlemaine GAA. I felt it was a reasonable response and while I think most will agree it was handled very poorly
this does does go some way to explain their motives and why in the long run it should be better for the community.

I have been exceptionally busy this evening dealing with a number of mod issues, but will respond at some point tomorrow. Others can speak for themselves, but many are simply not online right now (and the fact that tonight was a Champions League QF night might explain that absence)

Orizio wrote: »

I'm afraid its impossible - if you want your arguments to be ignored then feel free to 'debate' with him, otherwise forget about it. No point debating with some unwilling to debate.

I think you made your point in the previous post, there is no need to labour it.

Yavvy

therecklessone wrote: »

I have been exceptionally busy this evening dealing with a number of mod issues, but will respond at some point tomorrow. Others can speak for themselves, but many are simply not online right now (and the fact that tonight was a Champions League QF night might explain that absence)

Please don't get me wrong .. I'm not suggesting that people are hiding for the discussion now or that this statement is a definitive answer to the issue in anyway. Im not looking to say "in yo' face" ... I just wanted to here the other side's opinion.

GuanYin

Making snide remarks about me in a forum I moderate, or indeed, ignoring my warning to get back on topic does not sparkle with me.

dfx-

Yavvy wrote: »

So I haven seen any of the people who are outraged at the GAA's actions comment on the statement from Miltown/Castlemaine GAA. I felt it was a reasonable response and while I think most will agree it was handled very poorly
this does does go some way to explain their motives and why in the long run it should be better for the community.

Hi,

This investment will transform the facilities at Castlemaine, facilities the entire community can, should, and will, be proud of.

Explain how the football club fits in that description.

GuanYin

Yavvy wrote: »

Please don't get me wrong .. I'm not suggesting that people are hiding for the discussion now or that this statement is a definitive answer to the issue in anyway. Im not looking to say "in yo' face" ... I just wanted to here the other side's opinion.

I'm not on any particular side, I merely feel that the statement was hypocritical in terms of talking about a community while washing their hands of it.

It basically reads "We did what we did because we're entitled to do it, we did it quietly because we knew it would upset people and you guys will look after the soccer club I'm sure."

They won't win anyone over with that.

Yavvy

one presumes that the people in the soccer club are members of the community ?

As members of the community they can avail of the facility.. its fairly simple
One day perhaps rule 42 will be gone too... that would be helpful.
also if a club house / astro turf pitch was built members of the community could use that

Im sure that the BBall court and tennis court will be great fun too.

Look I understand its an inconvenience to the soccer team - a major one.
I hope their new home is even better than the one they just lost and that the go form strength to strength .

I have heard of soccer clubs developing facilities that benefit the whole community...they are not catering to GAA clubs when they do this they are catering to people

Hard Worker

Yavvy wrote: »

So I haven seen any of the people who are outraged at the GAA's actions comment on the statement from Miltown/Castlemaine GAA. I felt it was a reasonable response and while I think most will agree it was handled very poorly
this does does go some way to explain their motives and why in the long run it should be better for the community.

Yes, better only in the opinion of the local GAA. Certainly not better for the local soccer team who have been playing there for years and now have no ground. It'll also be better for basketball and tennis, but not for soccer. So that's OK then.
I wonder where the approx 700,000 will come from for this re-developement. I certainly hope that the Government aren't supporting this disgraceful carry on.

Yavvy

I think the GAA club does not consider the soccer club as "the community" anymore than the soccer club does not consider the GAA club to be the "the community".

So they did what they were entitled to do, it will benefit the community and they did it with the least amount of chance of someone getting hurt. I think this may work out for the best in the end. I predict that the soccer club will get some kind of pay off and end up having better facilities than ever

the right way to have gone about this would have been to get consensus - I think the GAA club feel this would have been thwarted at every step by the soccer club - short sighted view in this instance but I understand it.

stovelid

Buck_Naked wrote: »

I don't think the fact that it isn't an experience of yours is relevant GY. It seems that you allow other negative occurances that haven't been an experience of yours to influence your opinion of the GAA so why not let some positive occurances have the same influence? It also seems that the only occasion when a non-GAA person becomes aware of GAA activites is when they are negative.

Not really fair. I actually find GY's input interesting precisely because she is approaching the facts and/or available information from a perspective that is culturally neural - culturally meaning she is not a 'stakeholder' on the Irish soccer or GAA side.

And I would think this even if I didn't concur with her views.

Hard Worker

Yavvy wrote: »

I predict that the soccer club will get some kind of pay off and endup having better facilities than ever

I'll refrain from commenting on your intelligence, but have you any idea where this some kind of pay off will come from?

K-9

Look, yes this is a Soccer forum, many genuine GAA followers follow soccer too and have no problems with it. You are going to get GAA followers on this thread trying to explain the position. Doesn't mean they are being awkward or trolling, just trying to explain the difference. They are genuine GAA fans who are trying to explain things from another point of view.

However when they see crap like the below:

Tbh. the actual title of this thread does not help. From the OP it seems soccer problems have a problem owning grounds as we all know from FAI ineptitude.


Anyway as to some posts.

The GAA is not a bigoted organisation.

It is not the biggest joke of an association. I assume on this forum ye are all aware of the FAI.

Stubborn? Many sections are, not all.

It is not the GAA as a whole.

GAA would do anything to get rid of soccer. Nah, soccer would do anything to get rid of GAA. Ones as bad as the other.


PML, Nazis, I gave up replying there, 1 1/2 pages in.

I have sympathy for the soccer mods. The GAA Mods don't have to put up with the above crap.

Hard Worker

K-9 wrote: »

GAA would do anything to get rid of soccer. Nah, soccer would do anything to get rid of GAA. Ones as bad as the other.

The FAI don't have a rule 42. In fact, no other sport in this country has a similar rule.

dfx-

Yavvy wrote: »

I think the GAA club does not consider the soccer club as "the community" anymore than the soccer club does not consider the GAA club to be the "the community".

The football club that has played there for 20 years not even part of the entire community?

That's strange.

Jesus1222

Xavi6 wrote: »

So they're hiding behind Rule 42.

That is a stupid remark. They're not hiding behind it, they're adhering to it and stating so plainly. Now how on earth, the rights and wrongs of the case aside, is that hiding behind it?

Jesus1222

Xavi6 wrote: »

It is the point.

We're talking about the GAA, it's reputation, and it being painted in a bad light. Their initial reaction to the request to open Croke Park was a negative one and they dragged and dragged the whole thing out for far longer than was necessary.

Yes fair play, they let other sports in eventually, but they moaned a hell of a lot along the way.

This comment indicates that you really don't understand the first thing about the GAA or the process that had to run it's course before Croke Park could be opened to others. I'll explain it to you; the GAA is essentially a democratic structure, not a single minded borg entity that can or will change it's mind on rules overnight. A process has to take place. Debates have to take place. Votes have to take place. Politics is involved. In the end Croke Park was opened yet the sound of whinging can still be heard.

Hard Worker

Jesus1222 wrote: »

That is a stupid remark. They're not hiding behind it, they're adhering to it and stating so plainly. Now how on earth, the rights and wrongs of the case aside, is that hiding behind it?

Funny how it was being ignored for 20 years in this case.

K-9

The GAA is full of inconsistencies. I just don't like general remarks painting us all with the same brush.

The FAI is incompetent, so therefor all soccer clubs throughout Ireland must be incompetent. Come on!

K-9

They opened Croker, it took then long enough, but they opened it.

BTW, that was because they actually had a proper democratic procedure to hear member views.

When did that last happen in the FAI?

This case sounds like some extreme muppets not representing the GAA followers, never mind the community. I'm sure many of the same GAA players play with the same soccer club.

Instead of pointing out the differences and posting massive generalisations, remember the majority of GAA followers would not agree with this. Why would they? They are soccer supporters to.

dfx-

As has been pointed out numerous times K-9, this compares to nothing the FAI have done. Other FAI comparisons are attempts to change the subject.

On Croke Park, what was there to debate? A simple decision to anyone with a modicrum of sport in them took so long because...

stovelid

dfx- wrote: »

On Croke Park, what was there to debate? A simple decision to anyone with a modicrum of sport in them took so long because...

Yavvy

Hard Worker wrote: »

I'll refrain from commenting on your intelligence, but have you any idea where this some kind of pay off will come from?

do you have something you would like to say about my intelligence?
I have a good idea where a payoff would come from

Hard Worker wrote: »

Funny how it was being ignored for 20 years in this case.

you don't have a scooby about this case do you ? if you did you would understand that rule 42 was never broken. go back to the start. even if you just read the kerryman articles it will be explained. let me know if you get stuck somewhere.

dfx- wrote: »

The football club that has played there for 20 years not even part of the entire community?

That's strange.

Still not getting the point. The point is that IMO, in the eyes of the GAA,the soccer club is not the community (and vice versa no doubt)- the people are. Im sure in time the GAA will extend the hand of friendship - and perhaps they too can use some of the facilities. but they will not be allowed breech rule 42 (no matter how many of us disagree with it)

dfx- wrote: »

As has been pointed out numerous times K-9, this compares to nothing the FAI have done. Other FAI comparisons are attempts to change the subject.

On Croke Park, what was there to debate? A simple decision to anyone with a modicrum of sport in them took so long because...

so its very very clear you do not have an understanding of the GAA or its process. You also dont appreciate the vastness of the organisation - comparing what the FAI have done to what the GAA has done is like comparing how many people watch a live soccer game in Ireland and how many watch a live GAA each year. not a fair comparison.

the GAA made the right decision, but they also did right discussing it at length. very little happens quickly in the GAA but the organisation in progressing

K-9

stovelid wrote: »

Indeed, the FAI did far better out of it than the GAA, but damn, generalisations are great fun.

Compare what they would have got under Lansdowne and what they got under Croker. Then compare to what the GAA got. You'll be surprised.

In fairness though, this maybe more applicable to Rugby, seeing as the FAI couldn't fill Croker.

Hard Worker

Yavvy, you said that the soccer club might get some sort of payoff. Who is going to give them the payoff? I hope you don't think that it will be the Government, and it certainly won't be the GAA. It's a simple question.
And you're right, maybe I know nothing about the case, so how is it that a soccer team has been playing on this land for 20 years, land that belongs to the GAA. Surely that is a clear breach of GAA rules. So why did this GAA club not plough up the field 20 years ago and get that soccer crowd out sooner.

stovelid

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, the FAI did far better out of it than the GAA, but damn, generalisations are great fun.

Compare what they would have got under Lansdowne and what they got under Croker. Then compare to what the GAA got. You'll be surprised.

In fairness though, this maybe more applicable to Rugby, seeing as they couldn't fill Croker.

They (GAA) are set to make 40 million from the complete programme of games of the IRFU and FAI, I say more power to them., but it's a business exercise, not a helping hand. And it's a business venture with zero constitutional consequence as far as 'foreign games' in GAA stadia go. Again: their ground; their business, but don't pass it off as an altruistic act to the other codes - unless you're the GAA PRO.

And again: it's possible (for me anyway) to discuss the GAA without derogatory reference to the FAI, who I spend enough time bashing anyway.

Yavvy

Hard Worker wrote: »

Yavvy, you said that the soccer club might get some sort of payoff. Who is going to give them the payoff? I hope you don't think that it will be the Government, and it certainly won't be the GAA. It's a simple question.
And you're right, maybe I know nothing about the case, so how is it that a soccer team has been playing on this land for 20 years, land that belongs to the GAA. Surely that is a clear breach of GAA rules. So why did this GAA club not plough up the field 20 years ago and get that soccer crowd out sooner.

Im not responding to your rule 42 question until you read the articles..im not responsible for your laziness form an opinion by all means. Ill find someone with an informed one to continue this conversation with.

why dont you think either the GAA or the Government or another party would not pay this soccer team off ? cause that never happens? let me know

K-9

stovelid wrote: »

They are set to make 40 million from the complete prorate of games of the IRFU and FAI, I say more power to them., but it's a business exercise, not a helping hand. And it's a business venture with zero constitutional consequence as far as 'foreign games' in GAA stadia go. Again: their ground; their business, but don't pass it off as an altruistic act to the other codes - unless you're the GAA PRO

And how much does a full Coker over a full Landsdowne make for the IRFU and FAI? Add in the Corporate boxes.

Again harsh on the FAI, seeing as they do well to get 50/60,000. Not really the GAA's fault though, but the capacity is there.

stovelid

K-9 wrote: »

And how much does a full Coker over a full Landsdowne make? Add in the Corporate boxes.

Again harsh on the FAI, seeing as they do well to get 50/60,000. Not really the GAA's fault though.

Address my points.

I hate the FAI too. No use in going there. I don't feel the need to blindly defend them.

Hard Worker

Yavvy wrote: »

why dont you think either the GAA or the Government or another party would not pay this soccer team off ? cause that never happens? let me know

The Government would have no reason to "pay them off" as the Government have no involvement in the case.
As you are involved in the GAA, perhaps you know if they have ever paid off a soccer club before. I've never heard of it. It would be nice to think that the soccer club would get something out of this and that's why I asked the question. At the moment they have no ground to call their own.
I think the only way that the soccer club will get anything from this is to take the matter to court.

dfx-

Yavvy wrote: »

Still not getting the point. The point is that IMO, in the eyes of the GAA,the soccer club is not the community (and vice versa no doubt)- the people are. Im sure in time the GAA will extend the hand of friendship - and perhaps they too can use some of the facilities. but they will not be allowed breech rule 42 (no matter how many of us disagree with it)

Yes, that's my point. Unfortunately for the GAA, the football club must be an integral part of the entire community and the community's support corroborates this. That last sentence is bluster and hence calls into question the justification in the entire article. The entire community as the GAA puts it isn't actually the entire community - it is actually for whom the GAA club decides who will benefit, but that doesn't sound as progressive as saying the entire community nevertheless.

Yavvy wrote: »

so its very very clear you do not have an understanding of the GAA or its process. You also dont appreciate the vastness of the organisation - comparing what the FAI have done to what the GAA has done is like comparing how many people watch a live soccer game in Ireland and how many watch a live GAA each year. not a fair comparison.

There is one obvious answer to one simple question from one vote. It's really not that difficult, unless you make it difficult.

Yavvy

your correct DFX the GAA are not being genuine when they say the entire community. i agree with you, I guess I was explaining from what i think is their POV.
I do hope that one day R42 is gone and that the GAA embraces a spirit of cooperation.

the Croke Park debate was a devisive issue and was not simple - I doubt you are going to accept that and im not going to persue it as it will drag us off topic.
agree to disagree ? you think it should have been simple, I dont

dfx-

I think we'll have to agree to disagree

therecklessone

Yavvy wrote: »

you don't have a scooby about this case do you ? if you did you would understand that rule 42 was never broken. go back to the start. even if you just read the kerryman articles it will be explained. let me know if you get stuck somewhere.

I've read the two articles, and this thread, and the one on the GAA forum.

The property belongs to the GAA and there's no debate about ownership as there is documentation there," Mr Conway stated, adding: "Of course the field was ploughed by the GAA

Milltown/Castlemaine GAA club are the legal owners of the property as registered by the Land Registry Authority in folio KY24138.

Perhaps I'm missing something, so I'm happy to be corrected, but the GAA says they own the property, contrary to Rule 42 soccer has been played on that property for nigh on 20 years...does Rule 42 only apply when HQ issues threatens expulsion from competitive games (as has been suggested was the case here)?

Now to Milltown/Castlemaine's statement: the crux of this issue has always been for me about how the gift of land in the 1930s for the benefit of the community has become an issue of GAA ownership, and their consequent lock out of a soccer team. I would love for legal clarity on this, but I would have thought that despite the land having been entrusted in the care of the GAA, the role of the trustees in administering it would be in the interests of all the community. If that is the case, i don't believe GAA rules should be applied, indeed I believe it morally wrong for anyone to refuse access based on one organisations rules and regulations.

Whether the GAA consider Castlemaine United as representative of the community, or vice versa, does not matter a jot. No organisation has a right to impose their beliefs to the detriment of another when the ground is supposed to be a community resource.

Now I believe in credit where credit is due, so bravo to Milltown/Castlemaine for the ancillary development they've proposed which will benefit the entire community. That doesn't change the fact that they have now told the members of another sports club "you can park your car there when you're dropping the kids to school, but you're not welcome as a soccer player". That is divisive, and undermines the goodwill shown in providing the other facilities.

I believe Rule 42 to be archaic, I think it ironic that the GAA will throw open it's doors for rock concerts and NFL, when it is so ready to turn away fellow Irish men and women because of the code they play. And that is very much on-topic by the way, since it is Rule 42 that is facilitating this move in Kerry.

therecklessone

dfx- wrote: »

On Croke Park, what was there to debate? A simple decision to anyone with a modicrum of sport in them took so long because...

In the defence of the Association, there were a number of motions to Congress in the years preceding the final vote in 2005, one of which was narrowly defeated in 2001. There are progressive elements within the GAA, of that I have no doubt, but like any democratic organisation there is a process to be followed. They are entitled to that process.

iregk

I'm just curious. A lot of GAA people in this thread constantly disucss rule 42. Exactly what does that rule state. Does it specifically state Soccer and Rugby or just foreign games?

Yavvy

HI therecklessone - I thought it was clear enough but on reflection its really not, apologies. -As fas as I can see The reason why Rule 42 has not been broken is that soccer was never played on a GAA pitch or gaelic grounds. Soccer was played on land that the GAA were the custodians of - I think this current move will officially make the property a GAA ground/property. Hence R42 comes into play

I do agree with you - as a person who loves sport I would prefer to see the site developed as a joint venture with both soccer and GAA and shared facilities. I also think that rule 42 is archaic.. I think it will change in the near future. These things take time in the GAA thats for sure - they will never be accused of being dynamic.

But having said all that - these people are doing what they feel is right for the Community ( as they see it) and I understand that. I think there is a lot more to the argument between the two clubs than we have seen so far.

Yavvy

Forigen games - although the admendment may mention specific sports
and BTW American football was considered entertainment as opposed to sport

Xavi6

Yavvy wrote: »

and BTW American football was considered entertainment as opposed to sport

I know it has cheerleaders and all but that is quite frankly ridiculous.

Hard Worker

Yavvy wrote: »

I thought it was clear enough but on reflection its really not, apologies. -As fas as I can see The reason why Rule 42 has not been broken is that soccer was never played on a GAA pitch or gaelic grounds. Soccer was played on land that the GAA were the custodians of - I think this current move will officially make the property a GAA ground/property. Hence R42 comes into play

On your own admission above, you have stated that the GAA were custodians of the land and now, because they have submitted plans for developement, they suddenly become owners.

Yavvy

Oh im not arguing the legalities - I have no clue of Irish property law. Clearly the GAA feel like they can claim/have/take ownership. I was only attempting to explain the rule 42 thing. Im not a GAA representitive guys there are no admissions from me just opinions.

It is possible the GAA owned the land but did not manage it as a GAA property ( which would confuse me) - The GAA have stated in no uncertain terms that they now own the property under land registery laws and have approved plannign permission... I would need much more detail than I have to explain it all.

But getting back to that I was saying - As I understand it - this was not a Gaelic Ground and therefore R42 was not broken. Also I think we can all accept that R42 is broken on a regular basis up and down the country ..its just kept a bit quiet is all.

Yavvy

Xavi - in relation to American football - because it was more of an exhibition I think its fair enough to call it entertainment.

Of course grid iron is a very serious and great sport but it's reasonable in this instance I think.

Xavi6

Yavvy wrote: »

Xavi - in relation to American football - because it was more of an exhibition I think its fair enough to call it entertainment.

Of course grid iron is a very serious and great sport but it's reasonable in this instance I think.

So was the Ireland/Poland game late last year 'entertainment' as it was only a friendly?

Yavvy

no - The rules were specifically ammended for the landsdown redevelopment. There was no need to classify the game as anything. had the landsdown exception not been in place there there might have been a case but I suspect it would have been rejected. This is because an irish international soccer match is not the - rare once off specitical that the American Football game was.

everdead.ie

As long as the gaa have the deeds if taken to court they will win normally they would be bound morally to allow the community as a whole use it if they where entrusted with it for the community. But they are not legally bound to do so.

iregk

So as nobody can tell me exactly what the rule is and I've just done a search on the net.

Rule 42 essentially says banning of non gaa sports but exceptions can be made.

Now lets look at a list of sports that have taken place in croker: Boxing, NFL, International Rules, Soccer before Ireland games and apparently once grey hound racing. So in essence the GAA bans sports not based really on any hard coded rule but purely on what they think will take money/bodies away from them.

Now did one GAA fan in here call the football community hypocrites? The GAA are a model aren't they.