The GAA at it again

iregk

Yavvy wrote: »

rare once off specitical that the American Football
game was.

But NFL has been played there a couple of times!

iregk

iregk wrote: »

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

GAA Rule Book wrote:

Uses of Property
(a) All property including grounds, Club Houses, Halls,
Dressing Rooms and Handball Alleys owned or
controlled by units of the Association shall be used
only for the purpose of or in connection with the
playing of the Games controlled by the Association,
and for such other purposes not in conflict with the
Aims and Objects of the Association, that may be
sanctioned from time to time by the Central Council.
(b) Grounds controlled by Association units shall not be
used or permitted to be used, for Horse Racing,
Greyhound Racing, or for Field Games other than
those sanctioned by Central Council.
(Note: Central Council shall have the power to authorise
the use of Croke Park for games, other than those
controlled by the Association, during a temporary period
when Lansdowne Road Football Ground is closed for the
proposed development.
Congress has approved that Rules 3, 4, 5, 44, 46, 47, 76(f)
and 144(g) shall allow for this for a temporary period, at
the end of which all these Rules stated shall revert to their
pre-Congress 2005 position.)

Full set of rules here.

iregk wrote: »

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.

OK. The soccer game that you said was played there was over 110 years ago when Bohemians were based there and was before either Rule 42 (now 44) existed. (See Chapter 2 of Phil Howlin's brief but interesting history of Bohemians reproduced on the Bohemians FC website.)

The current rules are there to limit the use of the grounds, sure, and many GAA members disagree with them, but the GAA has never hidden it's refusal to officially help or be seen to help either the FAI or IRFU. At club level, which is the only level most GAA members ever really engage with the association at officially, innumerable clubs share facilities and assist and get assistance from local soccer and rugby clubs. Every once in a while something dumb like this happens, normally thanks to some paleo-republican moron on the committee of the local club or county board getting his back up about something. Like most of the GAA posters here have said, we look forward to the day Rule 42 (44) is not a problem anymore, but for now the politics of that are so ridiculously complicated within the GAA as to make it undo-able. The only way they got the current temporary amendment was by making it temporary rather than leaving it to Central Council to choose when it was appropriate to open Croke Park to soccer and rugby because the national council delegates thought they'd be too liberal with it and allow soccer and rugby matches be staged there too often for the conservative delegates tastes.

iregk wrote: »

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

Actually, they are a model for a well run organisation that does a great job in supporting the grass roots level and developing the marquee level of the game.

However, if you are saying the GAA are hypocrites then again I must say no. They have never made ANY secret that they want GAA to be the dominant sport in Ireland and the rules have always been known banning soccer and rugby from GAA fields. That many members disagree with that is not hypocrisy, it is simply the nature of a large democratic organisation.

thegen

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

XAVI,

As a supporter for too long now I cant consider any games in the last number of years played by our national team as entertainment. More of an endurance test for the fans;)

Great 1st half last night btw.

Benedict XVI

iregk wrote: »

But NFL has been played there a couple of times!

No it has not

The only NFL regular season games played in Europe have been the games at wembley for the past two years

College Football (Notre Dame v Navy) was played at CP in 1996

An NFL preseason/exhibition game was played in 1997.

iregk

Benedict XVI wrote: »

No it has not

The only NFL regular season games played in Europe have been the games at wembley for the past two years

College Football (Notre Dame v Navy) was played at CP in 1996

An NFL preseason/exhibition game was played in 1997.

Ok you say NFL has not been played there a couple of times yet post up a couple of fixtures that were played. Can you count?

NFL has been played there in 1946m 96 & 97 and is due to be played in 2012. Add to the list i posted as well, Baseball. Baseball has also been played in croker.

Essentially what rule 42(44) means is that we will let any sport in to play as long as its not soccer or rugby, because we want to stun their growth.

Benedict XVI

iregk wrote: »

Ok you say NFL has not been played there a couple of times yet post up a couple of fixtures that were played. Can you count?

NFL has been played there in 1946m 96 & 97 and is due to be played in 2012. Add to the list i posted as well, Baseball. Baseball has also been played in croker.

Essentially what rule 42(44) means is that we will let any sport in to play as long as its not soccer or rugby, because we want to stun their growth.

NFL = National Football League

NCAA = National Collegiate Athletic Association

Notre Dame v Navy is NCAA Football, it is American Football but not NFL.

The NFL game played there in 1997 was a exhibition.

Am I Pedantic, yes, but get your terminology correct

vote4pedro

iregk wrote: »

Essentially what rule 42(44) means is that we will let any sport in to play as long as its not soccer or rugby, because we want to stun their growth.

Not quite, that's missing out on the fact that rugby and soccer are British sports, which the almighty GAA see as being unclean for us proud Irishmen and women.
A nasty, nasty, outdated organisation as this whole affair shows. They are a horrible, political organisation and I find it hard to convey just how lowly I think of them.

vote4pedro

everdead.ie wrote: »

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.

Not necessarily, I don't know the full details of the case at hand here, but if they've allowed the soccer club to play there knowingly for 20 years then the issue of the soccer club having a licence over the ground may be raised, meaning they equitably had a right to the land.

iregk

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Notre Dame v Navy is NCAA Football, it is American Football but not NFL.
Am I Pedantic, yes, but get your terminology correct

Oh ffs. Do I know anything about NFL, no, its another crap sport. American football not just NFL.

Thats the most ridiculously pedantic post I have seen in years. I'm embarrassed for you.

thegen

vote4pedro wrote: »

Not quite, that's missing out on the fact that rugby and soccer are British sports, which the almighty GAA see as being unclean for us proud Irishmen and women.
A nasty, nasty, outdated organisation as this whole affair shows. They are a horrible, political organisation and I find it hard to convey just how lowly I think of them.

I think you just have. You have also shown yourself as Rugby or Soccer equivilant.

As a supporter of both Soccer and GAA and one who supports albeit with a minimal understanding of Rugby, Rugby you are an embarrasment to whichever code you are involved with or are you just an armchair supporter that has a problem with the GAA?

You might clarify what sport you are a supporter of.

I think he's a supporter of pedro

_blank_

vote4pedro wrote: »

rugby and soccer are British sports,

This is the elephant in the room.

All this bluster about protecting the games blah blah blah, the sole purpose of Rule 42 (44) is to stop the playing and growth of "Garrison Games" in Ireland.

Now, back in the 1800s when Irish people were, in fact, being put upon by that nasty Britannia, I can understand the rule.

But not nowadays.

The GAA own tracts of land in EVERY parish in this country, and while they may open it up to country fetes, egg and spoon racing on school sports day and for parking cars beside the local creche, the fact remains that the most played sport in the country remains banned from this land.

So banned, in fact, that a field was ploughed because some lads wanted to play a game of Soccer on it.

thegen

Des wrote: »

This is the elephant in the room.

All this bluster about protecting the games blah blah blah, the sole purpose of Rule 42 (44) is to stop the playing and growth of "Garrison Games" in Ireland.

Now, back in the 1800s when Irish people were, in fact, being put upon by that nasty Britannia, I can understand the rule.

But not nowadays.

The GAA own tracts of land in EVERY parish in this country, and while they may open it up to country fetes, egg and spoon racing on school sports day and for parking cars beside the local creche, the fact remains that the most played sport in the country remains banned from this land.

So banned, in fact, that a field was ploughed because some lads wanted to play a game of Soccer on it.

Croke Park?

i am a supporter of both sports and see both sides. I agree what happened in Kerry was stupid, but so was digging up the GAA ground. How can you stand over any of you post when Croke Park was opened up?

vote4pedro

thegen wrote: »

I think you just have. You have also shown yourself as Rugby or Soccer equivilant.

As a supporter of both Soccer and GAA and one who supports albeit with a minimal understanding of Rugby, Rugby you are an embarrasment to whichever code you are involved with or are you just an armchair supporter that has a problem with the GAA?

You might clarify what sport you are a supporter of.

I'm sorry? I say I hate the GAA for its anachronistic elements and the fact it is a political organisation, becaus I believe sporting organisations shouldn't mix with politics and still be handed grants as any other sport, open to all, would get. And your counter is to say I've shown myself to be the equivalent? The equivalent of what?

Why would I clarify whta sport I'm a supporter of, I don't see how that changes any part of my argument. To answer your somewhat pointless question, last week I was at an All Ireland League rugby club game, this weekend I'll be at one League of Ireland soccer game, and will also get in some tennis playing aswell. Now how does that change the fact I find the GAA completely anachronistic?

_blank_

thegen wrote: »

Croke Park?

i am a supporter of both sports and see both sides. I agree what happened in Kerry was stupid, but so was digging up the GAA ground. How can you stand over any of you post when Croke Park was opened up?

Are the soccer team in Kerry going to be allowed to play their matches at Croke Park?

Croke Park wasn't "opened up", the GAA are allowing other sports to be played there for a limited time, at times of their convenience. For money.

vote4pedro

thegen wrote: »

Croke Park?

i am a supporter of both sports and see both sides. I agree what happened in Kerry was stupid, but so was digging up the GAA ground. How can you stand over any of you post when Croke Park was opened up?

Croke Park was opened up temporarily. Under great political pressure and the duress of Ireland having nowhere else to play. And in 2010 Croke Park will once again be closed for the use of rugby and soccer, just as every other GAA ground across the nation is currently.

Also, if the GAA ground was dug up, it was not under orders from an official body which urged it done to uphold an official rule of an official sporting body. Unlike the GAA's actions.

thegen

thegen wrote: »

Croke Park?

i am a supporter of both sports and see both sides. I agree what happened in Kerry was stupid, but so was digging up the GAA ground. How can you stand over any of you post when Croke Park was opened up?

I think Des has a point to be fair.

Like I said before though, that rule and the attitude that underpins it is on its way out from the GAA. It will take time but the new generation of GAA players and members and fans are almost universally fans of all sports played in Ireland and this will show through in the long term.

_blank_

Also, the GAA field that had the whole dug in it. Boo hoo. Can you prove that the FAI sanctioned it, or in fact if any Soccer related people done the dirty deed?

For all you know it could have been some local holigans out to cause a bit of trouble.

There is substantial proof that the ploughing of the field was sanctioned from on-high in the GAA.

Des

Des wrote: »

Croke Park wasn't "opened up", the GAA are allowing other sports to be played there for a limited time, at times of their convenience. For money.

I'm sorry Des but this point is pretty silly.

Of COURSE the GAA charged for the use of Croke Park. Of COURSE the GAA only allow it to be used where it does not conflict with their own use of their own stadium.

As for the limited time. Given the athenian wrestling match that is the body politic of the GAA National Council it's a miracle that the proposal got through. It's got nothing to do with bigotry or anything else, just politics. Every county has enemies so whoever proposes it immediately loses support from x, y and z. Then there are the idiot hardliners, then there are the guys who have idiot hardliners on their county boards and don't want to live with the headache of voting for the proposal and having to hear the bitch fighting when they return to county board.

The fact that someone managed to get that amendment to rule 42 through is a miracle frankly, and one which I and many others were delighted to see.

thegen

Des wrote: »

Are the soccer team in Kerry going to be allowed to play their matches at Croke Park?

Croke Park wasn't "opened up", the GAA are allowing other sports to be played there for a limited time, at times of their convenience. For money.

I hope there not, its bad enough looking at our national teams inept performances there.

Will love to see Landsdowne opened up to the GAA for money in the future.

Your reaction is based on your dislike of GAA. Simple as that. I have an affiliation to both a GAA and Soccer club.

The GAA club has built a superb all weather facility and soccer is played on it. Soccer is watched in the clubhouse whether its Premier league, champions league or Internationl football.

The soccer team has an all weather facility but as yet no real clubhouse for recreational use other than dressing rooms etc.

Whether you like it or not both sporting organasitions are good for the kids on this island. The more we encourage them to play sport the better.

BTW my kids play Soccer, GAA (Hurling and Football), Rugby and Hockey.

I will lencourage them to play whichever they like best and not try and influence their choice.

I would hope you would do the same.

Yours in sport.

Daysha

Des wrote: »

So banned, in fact, that a field was ploughed because some lads wanted to play a game of Soccer on it.

Did you even read the statement?

Seriously, sometimes I even wonder whats the point of debating things like this when you have people posting stuff like that. But I'm going to try clear this up one more time, so I'll have to try my best Rafa Benitez impression here:

It is a fact that the GAA own the pitch and surrounding areas.

It is a fact that the club went about all the legal necessary procedures to began redevelopment.

It is a fact that they were given full, unequivocal planning permission by the necessary authorities.

It is a fact that the GAA club went through standard protocol and let Croke Park know that the redevelopment was taking place.

It is a fact that Croke Park gave them their seal of approval.

Now Des, tell me, in light of all these facts, do you have evidence to prove that the club didn't actually want the redevelopment done for good use and just wanted to piss off the soccer club, or are you just regurgutating the usual one-sided, anti-GAA shíte coming out by a few in this topic?

_blank_

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry Des but this point is pretty silly.

Of COURSE the GAA charged for the use of Croke Park. Of COURSE the GAA only allow it to be used where it does not conflict with their own use of their own stadium.

I don't have any issue with the times and dates of matches, of course, they own the place, they get to say when it can be used. No issue with that at all, at all.

I'm simply making the point that Croke Park wasn't "opened up".

Des

Des wrote: »

I don't have any issue with the times and dates of matches, of course, they own the place, they get to say when it can be used. No issue with that at all, at all.

I'm simply making the point that Croke Park wasn't "opened up".

So you are just being pedantic about your definition of the expression? There are legitimate things to be argued here Des, that's not one of them.


Also, when you mentioned "substantial" proof of the "high-ups" in HQ having giving the go ahead do you mean they gave approval for the development after the club went through standard protocol for development of a facility and informed HQ before proceeding?

If you are implying that there is some sort of dark conspiracy in HQ then I'd like you to show your "substantial proof" please.

_blank_

thegen wrote: »

I would hope you would do the same.

I don't have any kids.

Anyway.

I manage a soccer team, and we play some of our games on the All-Weather Dual Purpose pitch in Templeogue, at St Jude's.

I'm unsure as to who owns the facility, but a large stone with some writing on it at the facility leads me to believe it was a joint effort between the local GAA club and the local Soccer club.

Both codes are to be commended for this, and the facility is great. Well, the pitch is a bit on the large side for an 11-a-side soccer game between two teams of unfit overweight men. Maybe the GAA are trying to give us heart attacks and kill us off that way.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Xavi6

thegen wrote: »

Will love to see Landsdowne opened up to the GAA for money in the future.

It can't be though due to the dimensions of the playing area.

The same point was raised in the Thomas Davis affair.

Des

Des wrote: »

Maybe the GAA are trying to give us heart attacks and kill us off that way.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Given the tone of your posts there's a part of me that doesn't think this is a joke on your part.:rolleyes:

vote4pedro

Daysha wrote: »

Did you even read the statement?

Seriously, sometimes I even wonder whats the point of debating things like this when you have people posting stuff like that. But I'm going to try clear this up one more time, so I'll have to try my best Rafa Benitez impression here:

It is a fact that the GAA own the pitch and surrounding areas.

It is a fact that the club went about all the legal necessary procedures to began redevelopment.

It is a fact that they were given full, unequivocal planning permission by the necessary authorities.

It is a fact that the GAA club went through standard protocol and let Croke Park know that the redevelopment was taking place.

It is a fact that Croke Park gave them their seal of approval.

Now Des, tell me, in light of all these facts, do you have evidence to prove that the club didn't actually want the redevelopment done for good use and just wanted to piss off the soccer club, or are you just regurgutating the usual one-sided, anti-GAA shíte coming out by a few in this topic?

Well first of all, I don't buy that. And second of all if a Shamrock Rovers fan had have outlined those exact points about a year and a half ago (clear legal ownership, went through proper legal/planning processes etc.) there'd be gaa fans on here still demanding the stand be knocked down, moved back ten yards, all because the local club genuinely deserved to play a big final there if they ever reached one. Nothing to do with trying to delay Shamrock Rovers moving to Tallaght...oh no

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

Maybe the GAA are trying to give us heart attacks and kill us off that way.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Comments like that don't do your arguments or the discussion any favours.

_blank_

Ah jaysis lads.

Come on.

Des

Des wrote: »

Ah jaysis lads.

Come on.

I came within a hair's breadth of getting banned for calling you bitter Des so you can hardly blame people for not seeking humour or layered meaning in posts (not saying anything about the decision, thanks for letting me stay, just making a point) and, like I jokingly said above, given some of your expressed opinions about the GAA that remark might be taken seriously by some people.

vote4pedro

Deleted User wrote: »

I came within a hair's breadth of getting banned for calling you bitter Des so you can hardly blame people for not seeking humour or layered meaning in posts (not saying anything about the decision, thanks for letting me stay, just making a point) and, like I jokingly said above, given some of your expressed opinions about the GAA that remark might be taken seriously by some people.

But I think we all know it wasn't meant to be taken seriously, so why should we pander to the overly sensitive/moronic?

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

Ah jaysis lads.

Come on.

I just wouldn't be surprised if that post was reported.

SectionF

Deleted User wrote: »

I came within a hair's breadth of getting banned for calling you bitter Des so you can hardly blame people for not seeking humour or layered meaning in posts (not saying anything about the decision, thanks for letting me stay, just making a point) and, like I jokingly said above, given some of your expressed opinions about the GAA that remark might be taken seriously by some people.

Des? Bitter? Surely not?

Seriously folks. Let's get realtm here. It's a joke! Anyone who reports that needs a sense of humour transplant.

thegen

Des wrote: »

I don't have any kids.

Anyway.

I manage a soccer team, and we play some of our games on the All-Weather Dual Purpose pitch in Templeogue, at St Jude's.

I'm unsure as to who owns the facility, but a large stone with some writing on it at the facility leads me to believe it was a joint effort between the local GAA club and the local Soccer club.

Both codes are to be commended for this, and the facility is great. Well, the pitch is a bit on the large side for an 11-a-side soccer game between two teams of unfit overweight men. Maybe the GAA are trying to give us heart attacks and kill us off that way.

Wouldn't surprise me.

Des,

I am based near you. I did manage to pull on a Shels jersey and a Rovers one in the very distant past.

My kids play for Leicester Celtic, sorry and BBSE in GAA. AFAIK the pitch at Judes is a joint venture between Templeogue Utd and Judes. It is to be commended.

Everyone has an opinion on this one. I feel are more balanced one is required.We can agree to disagree.

Get the kids playing sport, any sport. Keep them interested for as long as possible.Keep them off the streets.

Anyway enough of my rantings.

vote4pedro

thegen wrote: »

Des,


Get the kids playing sport, any sport. Keep them interested for as long as possible.Keep them off the streets.

Anyway enough of my rantings.

Thats my exact point. Get kids playing sports. Soccer clubs, rugby clubs, tennis clubs, boxing clubs, dont take umbrage if a kid plays elsewhere. GAA clubs do. You just have to look at the guff that GAA journalists like Tom Humphries come out with, their mindset is to constantly see threats everywhere, the threats of gaelic football overshadowing hurling, the threat of kids playing British games, the threat of Ireland succeeding internationally at other sports. This leads to pathetic measures by the GAA, such as having Rule 42, such as trying to put Shamrock Rovers out of business, such as often threatening players with benching if they tog out for soccer teams, such as digging up that soccer pitch in Kerry.

They're a political organisation as much as a sporting organisation.

Daysha

Des wrote: »

Ah jaysis lads.

Come on.

I'd say there's a lot of people here who would say the exact same thing to you.

thegen

vote4pedro wrote: »

Thats my exact point. Get kids playing sports. Soccer clubs, rugby clubs, tennis clubs, boxing clubs, dont take umbrage if a kid plays elsewhere. GAA clubs do. You just have to look at the guff that GAA journalists like Tom Humphries come out with, their mindset is to constantly see threats everywhere, the threats of gaelic football overshadowing hurling, the threat of kids playing British games, the threat of Ireland succeeding internationally at other sports. This leads to pathetic measures by the GAA, such as having Rule 42, such as trying to put Shamrock Rovers out of business, such as often threatening players with benching if they tog out for soccer teams, such as digging up that soccer pitch in Kerry.

They're a political organisation as much as a sporting organisation.

And Toms finest piece was in Saipan;)

Why dont you just leave it at kids playing sport. All clubs do it. I have heard of Soccer clubs changing their match days to clash with other sports and forcing kids into decisions before the have too.

bohsman

I honestly wish they* had refused to open up croke park. 40m less cash floating around and massive political pressure along with alienating themselves even more from all sane people in the country.

*When I say "they" I suppose I mean central council and not the gaa that runs trough every member when the organisation is being criticised but has nothing to do with them when someone in the gaa does something indefensible

K-9

stovelid wrote: »

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 the FAI couldn't fill Croker.

stovelid wrote: »

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.

K-9 wrote: »

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 wrote: »

Address my points.

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

Your only point seems to be the money. They get rent for the use of it, shock horror. The IRFU and maybe the FAI profited from the use of Croker. Personally I believe they should have been told, "take what you'd get with Lansdowne and we take the rest". Now that would have been greedy!

The GAA did nicely out of it as did the IRFU and FAI. Indeed I seen a suggestion they they should stay there, as with a 50,000 capacity they can't make the same revenue!

As regards the FAI comparisons, I only pointed it out because I don't like generalisations about the GAA or the FAI. Many good people in both with a few eejits at the top.

therecklessone wrote: »

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.

Indeed, many GAA members don't agree with their decisions but they have their own procedures.

Xavi6 wrote: »

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

It is, no problem admitting that.

Hard Worker wrote: »

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.

This seems to be their logic. Can't say I agree with it, but they have a point.

Des wrote: »

This is the elephant in the room.

All this bluster about protecting the games blah blah blah, the sole purpose of Rule 42 (44) is to stop the playing and growth of "Garrison Games" in Ireland.

Now, back in the 1800s when Irish people were, in fact, being put upon by that nasty Britannia, I can understand the rule.

But not nowadays.

The GAA own tracts of land in EVERY parish in this country, and while they may open it up to country fetes, egg and spoon racing on school sports day and for parking cars beside the local creche, the fact remains that the most played sport in the country remains banned from this land.

So banned, in fact, that a field was ploughed because some lads wanted to play a game of Soccer on it.

It's taking a lot of time to change it. Other rules like the ban on playing foreign games full stop and the ban on PSNI officers have gone. They are very slow to change but they do.

Des wrote: »

Are the soccer team in Kerry going to be allowed to play their matches at Croke Park?

Croke Park wasn't "opened up", the GAA are allowing other sports to be played there for a limited time, at times of their convenience. For money.

That is all they were asked to do.

vote4pedro wrote: »

Well first of all, I don't buy that. And second of all if a Shamrock Rovers fan had have outlined those exact points about a year and a half ago (clear legal ownership, went through proper legal/planning processes etc.) there'd be gaa fans on here still demanding the stand be knocked down, moved back ten yards, all because the local club genuinely deserved to play a big final there if they ever reached one. Nothing to do with trying to delay Shamrock Rovers moving to Tallaght...oh no

There would have been. I can't speak for all GAA fans.

vote4pedro wrote: »

Thats my exact point. Get kids playing sports. Soccer clubs, rugby clubs, tennis clubs, boxing clubs, dont take umbrage if a kid plays elsewhere. GAA clubs do. You just have to look at the guff that GAA journalists like Tom Humphries come out with, their mindset is to constantly see threats everywhere, the threats of gaelic football overshadowing hurling, the threat of kids playing British games, the threat of Ireland succeeding internationally at other sports. This leads to pathetic measures by the GAA, such as having Rule 42, such as trying to put Shamrock Rovers out of business, such as often threatening players with benching if they tog out for soccer teams, such as digging up that soccer pitch in Kerry.

They're a political organisation as much as a sporting organisation.

So what if they are?

civis_liberalis

Ok...

When I first heard of this story, I was firmly in one camp, due to personal bias and preconceptions .

I still believe that the situation should never have developed into what it is, but it has. No amount of finger wagging or citing of broader issues, that are not pertinent to the matter at hand will resolve it.

The most obvious thing I think that can be done resolve the situation to the satisfaction of the majority of community is, that aggrieved members of Milltown / Castlemaine GAA exercise their democratic rights. After listening to the Liveline debate and hearing that some members of the club decided that they would not be renewing their membership, it made me think about their reasoning.

If they disagree with the representatives of Milltown/Castlemaine GAA club, they should do the opposite and remain as members. If the club is run democratically, as it is claimed (not a dig, I just am not privvy to the details of the inner workings of the GAA on a local level), they should be able to air their grievances about the situation as members of the club itself. If then, the majority of the membership feels strongly enough about the issue, motions to rectify the situation could be put forward.

If the representatives of the club carry out the wishes of it's membership, an end to the dispute should be achievable. If the representatives are not willing to do so, candidates willing to carry out the will of the majority should be put forward when the next AGM takes place.

Some of you may wonder what I mean by "putting an end to the dispute". Please correct any of the following if I have made any mistakes concerning the facts of the situation.

The original landowner(s) originally placed the field in the trusteeship of 3rd parties, for the purpose of maintaining it as a community field, be it for sports or other community events or activities.

I have no expertise in legalese, but if it was the intention of those who gifted the land to have it open to everyone, fair enough, but entrusting the land to a third party, to have it maintained as above raises a few questions for me.

In placing the land in the trusteeship of that trio, would they have retained ownership or would it have been transferred? If ownership was transferred to the trustees, legally would they be entitled to treat the land as their own, unimpeded by any intention there might have been to have it preserved for certain activities by the previous legal owner? If this was the case, the club have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

However, if ownership of the land legally rests with the landowner who gifted it (or the those with which the inheritance of his estate rests), any transfer of the field into the ownership of another party would surely be illegal?

Perhaps it is possible that ownership would be transferred, but would also be governed by the conditions attached to it's use?

In addition to this,

When asked to clarify who the owner was on Liveline, the secretary of the Kerry County Board stated that "They (Milltown/Castlemaine GAA Club) have the titled deeds."
The language used there is slightly ambiguous. My interpretation is that "having" the deeds in your possession differs from having legal ownership in the sense I feel it is generally excepted. Now, I don't argue that the club seem to own it in the eyes of the law, but I would wonder if the circumstances which lead to the field coming into their possession conflicted with the terms of the trusteeship (if they were legally binding).

In summation,

Basically I think the members of the community who have been members of the GAA club should air their grievances through the relevant channels in their organization. If the club are worried about a conflict due to the land being owned by the GAA, perhaps the land could be placed back into trusteeship, thereby removing any conflict that exists with rule 42, even if the trustees were all in effect, members of the GAA organization.

It has been stated on many occasion by both sides of the dispute that it is a resource for the whole community. The statements made by the club and the county board contradict this. Rule 42 prohibits it from being so. While I agree the GAA have seem to have the right to develop the pitch as they see fit, continuing to claim that they will maintain it as a resource for the whole community undermines their whole argement.

bohsman

bohsman wrote: »

*When I say "they" I suppose I mean central council and not the gaa that runs trough every member when the organisation is being criticised but has nothing to do with them when someone in the gaa does something indefensible

Oscar, seriously, how hard is this to get.

When you say "the GAA" I take it to mean every single member of that organisation. Are you a member of the FAI? No. The FAI and the LOI are organisational and governing bodies. The GAA is not the same as other sporting organisations because it is not just an organising and governing body, it is also a social and community body and has always seen itself as such and acted as such.

It is for that reason that GAA members get annoyed when you say "The GAA are a bunch of bigots". Unless you are referring to everyone involved as being such?

Can I make it any clearer?

Hard Worker

Deleted User wrote: »

The GAA is not the same as other sporting organisations because it is not just an organising and governing body, it is also a social and community body and has always seen itself as such and acted as such.

It is for that reason that GAA members get annoyed when you say "The GAA are a bunch of bigots". Unless you are referring to everyone involved as being such?

I agree with you. The GAA sees themselves as all of the above. However, the big problem I have with the GAA is that they cannot really be a community body when they see soccer and rugby people as threats. They will "get away with it" in a lot of communities where only GAA is played, and they will do good work in those communities. If, or whenever, they get rid of rule 42, they will be respected all accross the whole community. The disgraceful carry on of Thomas Davis GAA club over the Tallaght Stadium affair will carry a sour taste for a long time. There's no need for "...last man standing...", ".......diet of association football....", or the barring of certain politicians from their clubhouse types anymore.

civis_liberalis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6P6FoiSrmA

K-9

civis_liberalis wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6P6FoiSrmA

The Irish and land, causes whole loads of bother, recessions and everything!

civis_liberalis

With that bit of light relief, are we ready to return to the actual subject of the thread?

Any one care to add to, challenge or pass comment on anything I said?

dfx-

civis_liberalis wrote: »

I still believe that the situation should never have developed into what it is, but it has. No amount of finger wagging or citing of broader issues, that are not pertinent to the matter at hand will resolve it.

It may not resolve this, but a discussion of the broader issues or finger wagging surely would have stopped this develop into what it has and will do again..

The broader issues and non-finger wagging are arguably what caused this to develop..

SectionF

Don't wag your finger at the GAA -- a surefire Christy Moore hit!

K-9

Ah Christy, no better man to highlight hypocrisy.

I do accept the thread got generalised, unfortunately. Look at the first 2 pages and you'll see why.

PS. Land is always a winner. Never goes down.

dfx-

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are just being pedantic about your definition of the expression? There are legitimate things to be argued here Des, that's not one of them.

It is something I could be accused of with my entire community thing aimed at Zavvy last night. It is critical and very legitimate points however and not just pedantry. There is a big difference in mindset between the entire community and as Zavvy puts it, what the GAA see as the entire community. It is disingenuous and attempting to be more progressive then is actually the case as I pointed out.

Similarly there's a very big difference in interpreting Croke Park was opened up and interpreting what actually happened. And again similar to when you dig deeper into Thomas Davis' objectives and behaviour. There's about a century difference in mindset.

K-9

dfx- wrote: »

Similarly there's a very big difference in interpreting Croke Park was opened up and interpreting what actually happened digging deeper. There's about a century difference in mindset.

But what is your interpretation.

Personally I think if it was opened or not, the snipes at the GAA would continue. They couldn't win either way.

If they opened it up, sure they are money grabbing b*stards, when the reality is most people didn't want our teams going abroad to play HOME internationals.

If they didn't, they are narrow minded etc. You wouldn't hear anything about the money then

The money point actually is opportunism. Hard line GAA members said the GAA was selling out. Interestingly money has been pointed out here.

Double standards.