The GAA at it again

dfx-

dfx- wrote: »

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.

As for opening Croke Park:

Everyone knew the rules were there. It was a big deal for the guys at the top of the association to ever back down from the bluster that got them there (most of these guys were starting their career at national council level in the height of the troubles - like it or lump it the GAA has always been a nationalist/republican oriented organisation at heart) and for them to do so at all was, as I have mentioned in other posts, a triumph of political skill as much as anything.

I do not understand your problem with the expression "opened up" to soccer and rugby though. Ostensibly that is what happened. If you would prefer a more accurate expression "temporarily made available to assist the other associations while their ground was being re-developed" then I can accept that but it's a bit of a mouthful.

If you are complaining about the spin the GAA put on it, why shouldn't they? Make hay while the sun shines after all. Plus all of that money that the GAA made went back into the development of the game. Are you saying them making money to assist grass roots improvement in sporting facilities was a bad thing?

As for Thomas Davis.

That was a disgrace. Neither the club nor the county board nor anyone who had a hand in that debacle should be proud of themselves. The muppet who made that "diet of association football" comment certainly does not speak for the majority of GAA members. The problem that you'll find is that the majority of GAA people agree that where a new public development is being made in the area of sports facilities then the GAA should not be excluded. In the Shamrock Rovers instance the facility was patently unsuitable for GAA usage and it was unfeasible to redesign the facility so they could not be part of it but that does not mean they do not have a right in future to be involved in state sponsored sports facilities like the one in Lusk. The motives behind the SRFC v TD scandal may well have been malicious, and certainly I believe they were, but that does not mean that the basic principle that they twisted to their own uses does not have merit.


Now, let's talk some on-topic semantics:

The GAA club in Kerry did legally own the pitch. (as shown by another poster above quoting from the Kerryman newspaper)

The GAA club did seek and obtain the necessary legal permissions to develop the site.

The GAA club did notify HQ in Croke Park of their intentions to develop the site as per standard protocol.

The GAA club did (and I am happy to admit this) go about this development in the wrong way.

No poster here has in spite of me asking them explicitly shown any proof that HQ had some underhanded part in this. Instead my position, which is that HQ simply received notification of a building project in Kerry and rubber stamped it, has been ignored because some posters believe there is substantial evidence that HQ played a part in this.

micks

thegen wrote: »

I have heard of Soccer clubs changing their match days to clash with other sports and forcing kids into decisions before the have too.

Even though schoolboy clubs in Dublin have no say in the day they play? Its determined by the League they are in. So that's bull.

micks

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

When you pay your membership do you get a card / receipt etc?
Is it from club or GAA?
Can you become a member of the GAA without being a member of a club?

Not loaded - honest queries.

micks

micks wrote: »

When you pay your membership do you get a card / receipt etc?
Is it from club or GAA?
Can you become a member of the GAA without being a member of a club?

Not loaded - honest queries.

You get a card and some other stuff depending on the club (ticket applications for championship games, booking forms for the club dinner dance, some stuff to register as a mentor for the junior sides, etc etc). You automatically become a member of both as, even if you are a non-playing member, you have voting rights.

dfx-

Kayroo, it is the spin that I object to, or more specifically the use of it. When the spin of progression is used to defend the GAA as has happened numerous times on this thread. The GAA's spin on entire community is not the entire community - there is a big difference in mindset. Rule 42 was temporarily suspended for one ground, not abolished. That's not much progression. The GAA will return to being exclusive in its entirety. Which 99% it still is.

It was a no-brainer of a decision dragged out unnecessarily if progression was important to the GAA. Or if those who had to back down from bluster really wanted to do so. It was simple.

On Lusk/Tallaght, read the link albeit from the Herald:

http://www.herald.ie/sport/gaelic-football/fingal-not-a-new-tallaght-1702482.html

O'Brien also cited the provision of almost €14 million to various GAA projects, over the past four years, "in case there is any perception that Fingal County Council are more favourably disposed towards soccer than any other sport."

"In the course of the meeting it was explained that the facilities (at Lusk) will be available for, and will welcome, underage schools and community Gaelic games.

"Due to the physical constraints of the site, however, it will not be possible to bring the pitches to full-size competition GAA dimensions. As the main purpose of the complex is as a training facility, however, it will be a resource as valuable to Gaelic games as to any other sport, both indoor and outdoor."

The statement also insisted that the complex "will be designed to serve as a genuinely multi-sports facility".

It is planned to develop two all-weather pitches (one outdoor and one indoor), in addition to a third grass pitch. The latter will become the home ground of Sporting Fingal -- who currently lie third in Division One after five games of the new League of Ireland season -- but won't be exclusively for their use.

In essence, it is exactly the same as Tallaght. Physical restraints on the site for full size pitch, but still training and junior games, just like Tallaght and every other game. Are the GAA to object a genuinely multi-sports facility again? Progression, you say? Spin and bluster, I say.

And this gem from the GAA Director General, Paraic Duffy on Tallaght

"The inescapable truth of the matter is that a stadium is effectively being developed, exclusively from exchequer funding, for a professional soccer club when a badly needed multi-sports stadium could, and should, have been provided in the area," Duffy wrote.

Does he seriously think it's not a multi-sports stadium? :eek: Inescapable truth?

K-9

dfx- wrote: »

It was a no-brainer of a decision dragged out unnecessarily if progression was important to the GAA. Or if those who had to back down from bluster really wanted to do so. It was simple.

Yet they refused it in 02 and there was significant opposition in the last vote.

Yet, the money card has been thrown at the GAA on this thread? Agree you get crap, disagree you get crap.

If money was the reason, it would have been changed years ago.

eagle eye

dfx- wrote: »

Does he seriously think it's not a multi-sports stadium? :eek: Inescapable truth?

You cannot play competitivie senior GAA on the Tallaght pitch, and its going to be the same in Fingal. While its multi-purpose its of no use for senior gaa matches.
Therefore its a multi-purpose sports stadium excluding our national game.

Are we being told here that GAA sports are not important enough to be parts of these developments?

Its anti-gaa is what it sounds like to me, and thats anti-Irish as this is our national sport, our national pastimes, without doubt the most popular games in this country.

micks

Deleted User wrote: »

You get a card and some other stuff depending on the club (ticket applications for championship games, booking forms for the club dinner dance, some stuff to register as a mentor for the junior sides, etc etc). You automatically become a member of both as, even if you are a non-playing member, you have voting rights.

Can you become a member of the GAA without being a member of a club?

therecklessone

eagle eye wrote: »

You cannot play competitivie senior GAA on the Tallaght pitch, and its going to be the same in Fingal. While its multi-purpose its of no use for senior gaa matches.

You cannot play golf either.

stovelid

dfx- wrote: »

Physical restraints on the site for full size pitch, but still training and junior games, just like Tallaght and every other game.

Plus let's see when TD ask to avail of Tallaght Stadium for junior grades and training use. My guess is never.

Like the fact that they (GAA) opted to earmark 24 acres of land, 3 miles away in Rathcoole, for a centre of excellence when they claimed they needed a senior grade facility so much that they spent 400+k of GAA member's money fighting SDCC/Rovers.

Yavvy

yes you can - be a member of the GAA without a club

vote4pedro

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

So what if they are?

Are you seriously going to defend that? You are admitting that they are a political organisation masquerading as a sporting one. Political organisations are not handed hundreds of millions in Government or lottery moneys. Its utterly laughable that you'd admit that! Sports and politics shouldn't mix.

Yavvy

The GAA is not a political organisation. But they do have political power. They are a sporting organisation.
its true because of their size, history and value to the nation that some decisions |(internally and externally) have political ramifications. equally powerful people in the GAA tend to be powerful people full stop - a lot of these people tend to become political.

there are lots of organisations (around the globe) that are non political (like charities, Not for profit groups etc ) that have become part of the political machine simply because everything is politics.

not a unique occourance and impossible to prevent

DeVore

Boards has political power, wheres our hand out?

DeV.

vote4pedro

Yavvy wrote: »

The GAA is not a political organisation. But they do have political power. They are a sporting organisation.
its true because of their size, history and value to the nation that some decisions |(internally and externally) have political ramifications. equally powerful people in the GAA tend to be powerful people full stop - a lot of these people tend to become political.

there are lots of organisations (around the globe) that are non political (like charities, Not for profit groups etc ) that have become part of the political machine simply because everything is politics.

not a unique occourance and impossible to prevent

Oh please, the GAA was created for political purposes, and is still run on those purposes, namely the forwarding of Irish (republican/nationalist) culture/sentiments, and clearly as we have seen in this thread, at the expense of evil "British" games. Its a disgrace.

dfx-

dfx- wrote: »

Kayroo, it is the spin that I object to, or more specifically the use of it. Rule 42 was temporarily suspended for one ground, not abolished. That's not much progression. The GAA will return to being exclusive in its entirety. Which 99% it still is.

At no stage has anyone said anything else was the case. I am fine with you objecting to spin but I think, frankly, you are moreso objecting to it because you dislike the GAA. Which is also fine. Why should the GAA not make the most of the situation?

dfx- wrote: »

It was a no-brainer of a decision dragged out unnecessarily if progression was important to the GAA. Or if those who had to back down from bluster really wanted to do so. It was simple.

One thing it most certainly was NOT, was a simple decision. I have already tried to explain the massive internal wranglings that were necessary to get that motion through National Council. Just because, from your perspective, it was a very simple decision, does not mean that it was a simple decision for the GAA.

dfx- wrote: »

On Lusk/Tallaght, read the link albeit from the Herald:

http://www.herald.ie/sport/gaelic-football/fingal-not-a-new-tallaght-1702482.html

In essence, it is exactly the same as Tallaght. Physical restraints on the site for full size pitch, but still training and junior games, just like Tallaght and every other game. Are the GAA to object a genuinely multi-sports facility again? Progression, you say? Spin and bluster, I say.

Oh but why not have a look at the facts rather than the Herald's version of the facts. Seeing as you hate spin so much?

The actual size of the site could facilitate 5 Croke Park sized pitches. That's asking a bit much, so why not just make one of the 3 proposed pitches on the 14.1 acre site (excluding the ancillary over-flow parking area) usable for GAA purposes. The GAA registered their interest at the initial planning stage as well as at a number of later stages. The only time that the site was deemed "unsuitable" was once a finalised set of plans was submitted to Fingal Co. Co. and it would be impossible to alter the facilities as currently set out. Had the site initially been designed with the thought of allowing GAA usage also then none of this would be a problem.

dfx- wrote: »

And this gem from the GAA Director General, Paraic Duffy on Tallaght
Does he seriously think it's not a multi-sports stadium? :eek: Inescapable truth?

Way to read the quote in the worst way possible. He was saying, correctly, that the site was designed for one sport when a multi-sport facility would have been far more beneficial for the whole community of sports in the area.
Was he wrong?

Now in that case the site was unsuitable for GAA usage but Duffy's point was that should have been taken into account at an earlier stage and an alternate site obtained. Perhaps that would have been unrealistic but are you saying that Tallaght would not have benefited greatly from the development of a multi-sports facility?

therecklessone wrote: »

You cannot play golf either.

Oh go away and make a serious point will you. A GAA and a soccer stadium are essentially the same shape and design other than the need for a larger playing surface for the GAA. Your comment is completely ridiculous.

vote4pedro wrote: »

Are you seriously going to defend that? You are admitting that they are a political organisation masquerading as a sporting one. Political organisations are not handed hundreds of millions in Government or lottery moneys. Its utterly laughable that you'd admit that! Sports and politics shouldn't mix.

Sports and politics shouldn't mix? LOL. OK, if you say so.

However, here in the real world, massive bodies with huge grass roots support and ties to every town in Ireland tend to be courted by politicians and use that for their own gain. Why shouldn't they?

Also, when I made the initial comment what I was actually saying was that the GAA has a large internal political system which needed to be navigated in order to get the temporary amendments to Rule 42 passed. But since you decided to argue something different I said I'd answer that point too.

DeVore wrote: »

Boards has political power, wheres our hand out?

DeV.

Every person in Ireland has political power. The GAA actively lobbies for Government funding and is, evidently, very very good at it. I didn't realise doing something legal that everyone else does and being good at it was so reprehensible.

vote4pedro wrote: »

Oh please, the GAA was created for political purposes, and is still run on those purposes, namely the forwarding of Irish (republican/nationalist) culture/sentiments, and clearly as we have seen in this thread, at the expense of evil "British" games. Its a disgrace.

Why is it a disgrace? I think the last sentence of your post is very pejorative and, considering that every single person who has spoken in favour of the GAA on this thread is also a soccer fan, I would have to disagree with it. I believe the GAA are trying to promote their games with an aim to making them the foremost games played in Ireland. I cannot see an issue with that. I agree the methods used by some, such as in the TD affair, carry undertones of malice towards soccer, but as poster after poster has pointed out these actions are not representative of GAA members as a whole and as time passes these dinosaurs are becoming much less of a force within the association than their attitudes were years ago. In fact now they are a very small minority, albeit some of them hold prominent office given their years of service to the association.

_blank_

eagle eye wrote: »

without doubt the most popular games in this country.

Untrue.

Soccer is the most popular, per capita of the population actually playing, sport in this country.

I'm just about to go out for the day, so I can't provide a legitimate cite at this stage, but I will when I have more time, unless someone does first.

therecklessone

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh go away and make a serious point will you. A GAA and a soccer stadium are essentially the same shape and design other than the need for a larger playing surface for the GAA. Your comment is completely ridiculous.

I beg to differ.

What we're in agreement with is that at some point the logistics mean that not every sport can be accommodated. The problem is deciding where that line should be drawn.

In Tallaght the attempt to get access for senior GAA threatened the viability of the project given the constraints of the site. Therefore it was reasonable for a publicly funded facility to "exclude" senior GAA given the circumstances.

I'm not aware of the details regarding Lusk, and work is calling, but I'll take a look at what I can when I can.

vote4pedro

Sports and politics shouldn't mix? LOL. OK, if you say so.

However, here in the real world, massive bodies with huge grass roots support and ties to every town in Ireland tend to be courted by politicians and use that for their own gain. Why shouldn't they?

Also, when I made the initial comment what I was actually saying was that the GAA has a large internal political system which needed to be navigated in order to get the temporary amendments to Rule 42 passed. But since you decided to argue something different I said I'd answer that point too.

Erm, if you ask almost any normal sports fan or member of an organisation they'll tell you that sports and politics shouldn't mix, and for the most part they don't.
That doesn't apply to the GAA who think that their sports "speak to the soul of the nation" and are more important then others, because they were created 125 years ago in a bid to further a political aim.

If you were trying to argue the other point, every organisation on a national scale has an internal structure that must be dealt with. If you want to use that as an excuse to keep exclusionary, anachronistic and embarassing rules forbidding two sports because they are British in origin then that is pretty sad.

therecklessone

therecklessone wrote: »

I beg to differ.

Beg away, your point is still ridiculous.

Difference in size between GAA pitch and soccer pitch (average) is about 4,000 sq.m. This is by no means insignificant but it's also structurally the same shape and much easier to accomodate the 2 sports than it would be golf.

Average difference between a GAA pitch and a golf course is about 198...acres. Not square metres, acres.

Hence, your point is nonsense.

vote4pedro

vote4pedro wrote: »

Erm, if you ask almost any normal sports fan or member of an organisation they'll tell you that sports and politics shouldn't mix, and for the most part they don't.
That doesn't apply to the GAA who think that their sports "speak to the soul of the nation" and are more important then others, because they were created 125 years ago in a bid to further a political aim.

I am a normal sports fan thanks. Although your implication to the contrary is most welcome.

Politicians use the GAA and the GAA use them right back in return. It's not as if the GAA are lobbying for an embargo on anything English. They were founded to forward a cultural aim. The political ramifications of that certainly informed the growth of the GAA.

vote4pedro wrote: »

If you were trying to argue the other point, every organisation on a national scale has an internal structure that must be dealt with. If you want to use that as an excuse to keep exclusionary, anachronistic and embarassing rules forbidding two sports because they are British in origin then that is pretty sad.

Do you read the entire thread or just the bits you think you can have a good dig at?

Nobody on this thread has said they thought retaining Rule 42 was a good thing. Not one person. Also, there isn't another sporting organisation in this country with a system like the GAA so it's really not comparable. Many, if not most, grass roots members want to see Rule 42 abolished (those that I know anyway) but these things take time. There is serious opposition to it from many of the older members in senior positions who still hold to the outdated notions you seem so happy to rail against. I am 100% certain within my lifetime we will see Rule 42 abolished. Personally I look forward to that day.

GuanYin

Deleted User wrote: »

Beg away, your point is still ridiculous.

Difference in size between GAA pitch and soccer pitch (average) is about 4,000 sq.m. This is by no means insignificant but it's also structurally the same shape and much easier to accomodate the 2 sports than it would be golf.

Average difference between a GAA pitch and a golf course is about 198...acres. Not square metres, acres.

Hence, your point is nonsense.

More to golf than links course. Could be a driving range or putting course.

I think you know the overall point and you're just arguing logistics.

By the by, politics pressure? Now my Mafia comment doesn't seem so throw away.

SectionF

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody on this thread has said they thought retaining Rule 42 was a good thing. Not one person. Also, there isn't another sporting organisation in this country with a system like the GAA so it's really not comparable. Many, if not most, grass roots members want to see Rule 42 abolished (those that I know anyway) but these things take time. There is serious opposition to it from many of the older members in senior positions who still hold to the outdated notions you seem so happy to rail against. I am 100% certain within my lifetime we will see Rule 42 abolished. Personally I look forward to that day.

If GAA members were serious about this shameful policy, and it there were such a majority against it, then they would make it their business to revoke it, and pronto. Doing nothing is not an acceptable response to what clearly is institutional bigotry.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere that a third of votes were cast against opening Croker to football internationals. That is not a little rump of elderly zealots that you can hope will pop its clogs soon to save your embarrassment.

vote4pedro

Deleted User wrote: »

I am a normal sports fan thanks. Although your implication to the contrary is most welcome.

Politicians use the GAA and the GAA use them right back in return. It's not as if the GAA are lobbying for an embargo on anything English. They were founded to forward a cultural aim. The political ramifications of that certainly informed the growth of the GAA.

Well other sports aren't so inextricably liked with politics, and that's a far healthier relationship to have.

They certainly aren't arguing for such an embargo, they're only too happy to have English football being played live in their clubhouse TVs. What they are arguing is that Irish kids shouldn't be playing soccer and rugby because they are British sports, and should play the superior Irish games.

Do you read the entire thread or just the bits you think you can have a good dig at?

Nobody on this thread has said they thought retaining Rule 42 was a good thing. Not one person. Also, there isn't another sporting organisation in this country with a system like the GAA so it's really not comparable. Many, if not most, grass roots members want to see Rule 42 abolished (those that I know anyway) but these things take time. There is serious opposition to it from many of the older members in senior positions who still hold to the outdated notions you seem so happy to rail against. I am 100% certain within my lifetime we will see Rule 42 abolished. Personally I look forward to that day.

I read and reply to the bits I take umbrage with. You say Rule 42 is outdated and will change with time. I say this isn't good enough, no other sporting organisation would have such a pathetic rule and merely saying that it will change in the mid to long term future isn't good enough if you're trying to defend the organisation. This is very relevant because the thread is about Rule 42 being taken to the extreme by the Kerry club/board in question.

SectionF

SectionF wrote: »

If GAA members were serious about this shameful policy, and it there were such a majority against it, then they would make it their business to revoke it, and pronto. Doing nothing is not an acceptable response to what clearly is institutional bigotry.

There are still enough people within the organisation to make the fight which would stem from any attempt to revoke 42 bloody and protracted. Some people will oppose it because it will win them support when they want to run for President, some will oppose it because they don't think the GAA should help games it competes with and there will be those who will spout the "profidious albion" nonsense. Regardless the divisions it will cause at the moment would be immense. The majority of the people in my club play minimum 2 sports (soccer and GAA) but the junior members rarely get involved in the running of the club so, alas, the old adage that decisions are made by those who turn up holds true and those who turn up tend to be the same people for the last 20 years with new people filtering in over time (reps from each of the senior teams tend to stay on in other capacities later on) so the transition from the old mindset to the new one is a slow process.

SectionF wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere that a third of votes were cast against opening Croker to football internationals. That is not a little rump of elderly zealots that you can hope will pop its clogs soon to save your embarrassment.

Sounds about right. I have no idea to be honest.

I don't want them to "pop their clogs" to save my "embarrassment". I think Rule 42 is antiquated, sure, but it doesn't embarrass me because I know it won't be there forever. I know that many clubs simply ignore it (inc. my own) and I know that in time enough GAA people in charge will be of a similar opinion to the younger group of members now.

K-9

stovelid wrote: »

Plus let's see when TD ask to avail of Tallaght Stadium for junior grades and training use. My guess is never.

Like the fact that they (GAA) opted to earmark 24 acres of land, 3 miles away in Rathcoole, for a centre of excellence when they claimed they needed a senior grade facility so much that they spent 400+k of GAA member's money fighting SDCC/Rovers.

Fair point. They highlighted a very important issue though, the Council bailing out Rovers and a Council sports stadium should cater for the community.

vote4pedro wrote: »

Are you seriously going to defend that? You are admitting that they are a political organisation masquerading as a sporting one. Political organisations are not handed hundreds of millions in Government or lottery moneys. Its utterly laughable that you'd admit that! Sports and politics shouldn't mix.

I don't need to defend it. What they do is there business.

vote4pedro wrote: »

Oh please, the GAA was created for political purposes, and is still run on those purposes, namely the forwarding of Irish (republican/nationalist) culture/sentiments, and clearly as we have seen in this thread, at the expense of evil "British" games. Its a disgrace.

Political, cultural and sporting reasons.
You might not agree with that but hey, this is a democracy.

vote4pedro wrote: »

Erm, if you ask almost any normal sports fan or member of an organisation they'll tell you that sports and politics shouldn't mix, and for the most part they don't.
That doesn't apply to the GAA who think that their sports "speak to the soul of the nation" and are more important then others, because they were created 125 years ago in a bid to further a political aim.

If you were trying to argue the other point, every organisation on a national scale has an internal structure that must be dealt with. If you want to use that as an excuse to keep exclusionary, anachronistic and embarassing rules forbidding two sports because they are British in origin then that is pretty sad.

For the most part politics is not part of the GAA, well except petty internal politics!

SectionF wrote: »

If GAA members were serious about this shameful policy, and it there were such a majority against it, then they would make it their business to revoke it, and pronto. Doing nothing is not an acceptable response to what clearly is institutional bigotry.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I read somewhere that a third of votes were cast against opening Croker to football internationals. That is not a little rump of elderly zealots that you can hope will pop its clogs soon to save your embarrassment.

It would never have been passed without the membership being heard. I accept far too many were against it. There was significant opposition to it because eh, there was significant opposition to it, reflected in the votes.

vote4pedro

vote4pedro wrote: »

Well other sports aren't so inextricably liked with politics, and that's a far healthier relationship to have.

If you say so. Unlike most other sporting organisations the GAA is not a professional body and it has made a point of having a strong lobbying voice.

vote4pedro wrote: »

They certainly aren't arguing for such an embargo, they're only too happy to have English football being played live in their clubhouse TVs. What they are arguing is that Irish kids shouldn't be playing soccer and rugby because they are British sports, and should play the superior Irish games.

Close.

It doesn't matter that they are English sports, it matters that they are not GAA. The GAA are promoting their own games over all others. Nothing wrong with that is there?

vote4pedro wrote: »

I read and reply to the bits I take umbrage with. You say Rule 42 is outdated and will change with time. I say this isn't good enough, no other sporting organisation would have such a pathetic rule and merely saying that it will change in the mid to long term future isn't good enough if you're trying to defend the organisation. This is very relevant because the thread is about Rule 42 being taken to the extreme by the Kerry club/board in question.

I am sorry if the truth does not satisfy you but it does not alter the facts. Yes, the rule needs to be changed. Yes, it may be being abused in this case. No, I do not want to see my association get into a large internal conflict. I want the rule changed but the best way to do that is to wait for the opportune time and that is not now. The time may come soon but it would be a waste to try it now when it will cause such a problem rather than waiting until the balance is right and it can be done without causing any harm to the association internally.

vote4pedro

K-9 wrote: »

I don't need to defend it. What they do is there business.

Not when they've been given hundreds of millions in taxpayer/lottery money and when their business actively impacts upon other people's business, particularly those of soccer/rugby fans and clubs. Its a bit pathetic to merely say the GAA don't have anyone to answer to as what they do is their business, when they take money from outside bodies and try to affect the rights of other bodies.

Political, cultural and sporting reasons.
You might not agree with that but hey, this is a democracy.

Absolutely, it is a democracy and I don't have to agree with it. But it is political reasons as you admit, and as far as I know its not normal practice to give a political organisation hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and for that political organisation to believe they hold some sort of special privileged position that deserves special protection, ala something like the the constitutional protection of marriage.

K-9

vote4pedro wrote: »

Well other sports aren't so inextricably liked with politics, and that's a far healthier relationship to have.

Many would disagree with you when it comes to the GAA. Hell, I'd agree with you but the GAA is different in that respect. Indeed, it's what makes it a unique and integral part of Irish society.

vote4pedro wrote:

They certainly aren't arguing for such an embargo, they're only too happy to have English football being played live in their clubhouse TVs. What they are arguing is that Irish kids shouldn't be playing soccer and rugby because they are British sports, and should play the superior Irish games.

I think that is a small section these days. Just as many, if not more, are concerned about losing players to Rugby and Soccer.

vote4pedro

Deleted User wrote: »

Close.

It doesn't matter that they are English sports, it matters that they are not GAA. The GAA are promoting their own games over all others. Nothing wrong with that is there?

That is utter bullsh.t and you know it. Other sports are allowed to be played in GAA grounds: american style wrestling, boxing, american football. The only ones that are not are those deemed of British origin: soccer and rugby. It is pathetic, and any attempt to you make to justify or pass this off as merely promoting their own sports is ridiculous.

vote4pedro

An integral part of Irish society?

K-9

vote4pedro wrote: »

Not when they've been given hundreds of millions in taxpayer/lottery money and when their business actively impacts upon other people's business, particularly those of soccer/rugby fans and clubs. Its a bit pathetic to merely say the GAA don't have anyone to answer to as what they do is their business, when they take money from outside bodies and try to affect the rights of other bodies.

They get the money just like any other sports, to provide facilities for clubs, members, kids etc., because our Govt. is useless at it. Same as soccer, rugby etc. I see your point, but until the day that the Govt./Lottery but those conditions on the grants, the GAA have done nothing wrong.

vote4pedro wrote:

Absolutely, it is a democracy and I don't have to agree with it. But it is political reasons as you admit, and as far as I know its not normal practice to give a political organisation hundreds of millions in taxpayer money and for that political organisation to believe they hold some sort of special privileged position that deserves special protection, ala something like the the constitutional protection of marriage.

Do they put up candidates at election time? Must have missed that part!

Look, the GAA is not the same as the FAI or IRFU. I don't think that would be a good idea as it would lose its very uniqueness, what makes it special.

The Irish language gets loads of funding and is still compulsory. I don't agree with that but many do. That's a similar context to the GAA.

K-9

vote4pedro wrote: »

An integral part of Irish society?

yep, in the eyes of many. Obviously you don't agree, but many do.

vote4pedro

The Irish language is constitutionally protected. People kicking the heads off each other on a gaelic football pitch isn't. Yet because of political pressure, they are able to get more than their fair share because they feel they are defending some sort of right which they don't have (unlike the Irish language, which has a constitutional protected right)

vote4pedro

K-9 wrote: »

yep, in the eyes of many. Obviously you don't agree, but many do.

Well that is absolutely, undefensibly, ridiculously, stupid. You could say it is an integral feature of Irish sporting life, but Irish society as a whole is actually hilarious. I'm laughing out load here at the tought of people actually thinking that.

K-9

vote4pedro wrote: »

The Irish language is constitutionally protected. People kicking the heads off each other on a gaelic football pitch isn't. Yet because of political pressure, they are able to get more than their fair share because they feel they are defending some sort of right which they don't have (unlike the Irish language, which has a constitutional protected right)

LOL, Kicking heads of each other!

More than their fair share? Have you any facts on that or is it your opinion?

K-9

vote4pedro wrote: »

Well that is absolutely, undefensibly, ridiculously, stupid. You could say it is an integral feature of Irish sporting life, but Irish society as a whole is actually hilarious. I'm laughing out load here at the tought of people actually thinking that.

As is your right, doesn't mean you are right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong.

vote4pedro

K-9 wrote: »

As is your right, doesn't mean you are right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong.

No, no, on this one I am right. They are wrong. GAA is not an integral part of Irish society, nor is League of Ireland football or the Irish grand slam rugby team. Its a joke to say otherwise.

K-9

vote4pedro wrote: »

No, no, on this one I am right. They are wrong. GAA is not an integral part of Irish society, nor is League of Ireland football or the Irish grand slam rugby team. Its a joke to say otherwise.

LOL, the LOI is definitely not an integral part of Irish culture, the Premiership is!

vote4pedro

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? About as farcical as saying that GAA "speaks to the soul of the nation" as Tom Humphries said, or is an "integral" part of our society. Its hilarious.

K-9

vote4pedro wrote: »

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? About as farcical as saying that GAA "speaks to the soul of the nation" as Tom Humphries said, or is an "integral" part of our society. Its hilarious.

It's ridiculous, but shows you that the GAA is different.

YEP, the GAA is full of its own self importance as is the want with sporting politics, the FAI are the same in that regard.

It has a unique place in Irish sporting culture. That any better?

vote4pedro

K-9 wrote: »

It's ridiculous, but shows you that the GAA is different.

YEP, the GAA is full of its own self importance as is the want with sporting politics, the FAI are the same in that regard.

I don't think even the FAI, an organisation I have little time for, would come out with something as ridiculous as genuinely believing they are intertwined with the soul and destiny of the Irish nation.

Daysha

vote4pedro wrote: »

An integral part of Irish society?

The GAA is the largest organisation of any kind in the entire country, sporting or non-sporting. Out of the island of Irelands populaton of 6,000,000, there are 800,000 members.

Thats over 13% of the entire country all members of the same, single organisation.

So yes, like it or loathe it, the GAA is an integral part of Irish society. It's practically indisputable.

vote4pedro

Practically indisputable? :rolleyes:

I always knew GAA fans to be arrogant and self-important, but jesus christ...

Daysha

vote4pedro wrote: »

Practically indisputable? :rolleyes:

I always knew GAA fans to be arrogant and self-important, but jesus christ...

Would you like to dispute the stats I've posted above, or are you going to resort to mindless name-calling?

vote4pedro

the Football Association of Ireland allow Ireland to compete on an international basis and project a great Irish product to people across the world, events such as Italia 90 have even had an effect on revitalising our economy, lifting the national mood, hundreds of thousands tune in to every qualifier to see if Ireland can qualify for a World Cup, and if they do the entire nation grounds to a halt. They are involved in promoting Irish jobs and the sporting life of youngsters across the country in numerous leagues and clubs. They do sterling work in impoverished areas across the country.

Ergo, they are an integral part of Irish life.

Prove that wrong.

(oh and also, there aren't 6 million people in our country, you're thinking of island, I mean hey, lets not blur lines between sport and politics when the gaa are concerned, right?)

patmac

vote4pedro wrote: »

The Irish language is constitutionally protected. People kicking the heads off each other on a gaelic football pitch isn't.

Never argue with an idiot he will take you down to his level and beat you with stupidity.
Stopped reading anything he said after that comment.
FYI the local soccer club got all the grants going in my area last year, now where did I leave my JCB.

Daysha

vote4pedro wrote: »

the Football Association of Ireland allow Ireland to compete on an international basis and project a great Irish product to people across the world, events such as Italia 90 have even had an effect on revitalising our economy, lifting the national mood, hundreds of thousands tune in to every qualifier to see if Ireland can qualify for a World Cup, and if they do the entire nation grounds to a halt. They are involved in promoting Irish jobs and the sporting life of youngsters across the country in numerous leagues and clubs. They do sterling work in impoverished areas across the country.

Ergo, they are an integral part of Irish life.

Prove that wrong.

(oh and also, there aren't 6 million people in our country, you're thinking of island, I mean hey, lets not blur lines between sport and politics when the gaa are concerned, right?)

Soccer is an integral part of Irish society. Along with rugby and the GAA.

The FAI, however, are not, because they are just simply a governing body. I thought we showed you the difference between the FAI and the GAA ages ago?

Also,

the Football Association of Ireland allow Ireland to compete on an international basis and project a great Irish product to people across the world

Shouldn't you mean the Republic of Ireland? The FAI only governs football in the republic, not the entire island of Ireland.

See, I can be pedantic too.

K-9

vote4pedro wrote: »

I don't think even the FAI, an organisation I have little time for, would come out with something as ridiculous as genuinely believing they are intertwined with the soul and destiny of the Irish nation.

Nah they wouldn't, because they aren't.

vote4pedro wrote: »

the Football Association of Ireland allow Ireland to compete on an international basis and project a great Irish product to people across the world, events such as Italia 90 have even had an effect on revitalising our economy, lifting the national mood, hundreds of thousands tune in to every qualifier to see if Ireland can qualify for a World Cup, and if they do the entire nation grounds to a halt. They are involved in promoting Irish jobs and the sporting life of youngsters across the country in numerous leagues and clubs. They do sterling work in impoverished areas across the country.

Ergo, they are an integral part of Irish life.

Prove that wrong.

(oh and also, there aren't 6 million people in our country, you're thinking of island, I mean hey, lets not blur lines between sport and politics when the gaa are concerned, right?)

LOL 6 Million. The GAA and IRFU have 32 county competitions so yes, it's accurate to count the whole Ireland.

Soccer is run on a 26 county basis, barring the Setanta Cup.

On a purely organisational point, it is a 32 county body.

vote4pedro

patmac wrote: »

Never argue with an idiot he will take you down to his level and beat you with stupidity.
Stopped reading anything he said after that comment.
FYI the local soccer club got all the grants going in my area last year, now where did I leave my JCB.

Good man, sticking your head in the sand and making light hearted comments about destroying "British" sports facilities. You'll go far in the GAA