GAA Top Brass

Gael85

Folks,does anyone know how much salaries the top officials in GAA earn a year??We know FAI John Delaney is on €365k a year but what do officials like O'Neill/Duffy earn??

munchkin_utd

Gael85 wrote: »

Folks,does anyone know how much salaries the top officials in GAA earn a year??We know FAI John Delaney is on €365k a year but what do officials like O'Neill/Duffy earn??

The GAA president is paid compensation of whatever salary there were on before they were on before their term according to this article (well, it's a little but more indirect but cash wise that's the outcome)
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/cooney-defends-presidential-pay-152683.html

I presume the director General gets enough to be comfortable but there's no way it would be compatible to Delaney.

RoyalCelt

munchkin_utd wrote: »

The GAA president is paid compensation of whatever salary there were on before they were on before their term according to this article (well, it's a little but more indirect but cash wise that's the outcome)
http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/cooney-defends-presidential-pay-152683.html

I presume the director General gets enough to be comfortable but there's no way it would be compatible to Delaney.

While the president is "only" compensated I think the GAA need to change that especially with the players still getting nothing but a small grant. Put a cap of 40k per year and no expenses on top of that for the president. This is one of the only aspects of the GAA I don't like. In the case of christy cooney if this applied to him the GAA would have been able to give out €360,000 more in grants during his 3 year term. If you can't live off €40,000 a year or don't want to then don't go for the job and leave it to someone who will.

While 80% of the revenues is sent to grassroots this could easily be made higher if a few near the top were made act a bit more like the players who play the game. Small things like this can go a long way.

bruschi

RoyalCelt wrote: »

While the president is "only" compensated I think the GAA need to change that especially with the players still getting nothing but a small grant. Put a cap of 40k per year and no expenses on top of that for the president. This is one of the only aspects of the GAA I don't like. In the case of christy cooney if this applied to him the GAA would have been able to give out €360,000 more in grants during his 3 year term. If you can't live off €40,000 a year or don't want to then don't go for the job and leave it to someone who will.

While 80% of the revenues is sent to grassroots this could easily be made higher if a few near the top were made act a bit more like the players who play the game. Small things like this can go a long way.

so you think that the head man of an organisation, with a turnouver of €55,000,000, with over 1,000,000 members worldwide, over 2,600 participating clubs in Ireland, with €2.6bn worth of assets, should be paid less than the average wage in Ireland?

seriously?

you pay for what you get. its a tough job, and the best people should be doing it, not the cheapest. I dont expect them to be on a CEO salary like some rehab boss, but I do expect them to be properly paid to do a proper job.

GBXI

bruschi wrote: »

so you think that the head man of an organisation, with a turnouver of €55,000,000, with over 1,000,000 members worldwide, over 2,600 participating clubs in Ireland, with €2.6bn worth of assets, should be paid less than the average wage in Ireland?

seriously?

you pay for what you get. its a tough job, and the best people should be doing it, not the cheapest. I dont expect them to be on a CEO salary like some rehab boss, but I do expect them to be properly paid to do a proper job.

Exactly, you get what you pay for. These are tough jobs and require a lot of experience. €40k my eye!

premierstone

RoyalCelt wrote: »

While the president is "only" compensated I think the GAA need to change that especially with the players still getting nothing but a small grant. Put a cap of 40k per year and no expenses on top of that for the president. This is one of the only aspects of the GAA I don't like. In the case of christy cooney if this applied to him the GAA would have been able to give out €360,000 more in grants during his 3 year term. If you can't live off €40,000 a year or don't want to then don't go for the job and leave it to someone who will.

While 80% of the revenues is sent to grassroots this could easily be made higher if a few near the top were made act a bit more like the players who play the game. Small things like this can go a long way.

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. The GAA's stance on the presidents slary is actually one of hte most admirable out there. I am absolutely 100% certain that if their wages were decided by an indepenent body it would be far greater.

harpsman

premierstone wrote: »

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. The GAA's stance on the presidents slary is actually one of hte most admirable out there. I am absolutely 100% certain that if their wages were decided by an indepenent body it would be far greater.

If the last few years has proved anything its that this argument is nonsense.
However I do agree that the chief executive of an organisation as large as the GAA should be on a fairly decent,but not obscene, salary.
90k would be my recommendation.

keane2097

harpsman wrote: »

If the last few years has proved anything its that this argument is nonsense.
However I do agree that the chief executive of an organisation as large as the GAA should be on a fairly decent,but not obscene, salary.
90k would be my recommendation.

It doesn't mean that you can't get a monkey if you pay millions, but you definitely won't get anyone good working for a pittance.

Martin567

keane2097 wrote: »

It doesn't mean that you can't get a monkey if you pay millions, but you definitely won't get anyone good working for a pittance.

Is €90-100k a pittance? Most Presidents have probably been paid less than that in accordance with their salary before being elected. Whoever is President will presumably be doing the same job. Does it make sense that one candidate could cost three or four times what another one does? Is that candidate's performance likely to be so superior?

harpsman

keane2097 wrote: »

It doesn't mean that you can't get a monkey if you pay millions, but you definitely won't get anyone good working for a pittance.

For alot of jobs, yes, but there are some jobs which carry alot of prestige and plenty of capable people would do them for nothing-for example if they decided that the next president of the USA was going to get paid nothing it wouldnt change the list of candidates.
Likewise alot of people would be gaa president for no pay. As a matter of interest what field did O Neill, Cooney, Brennan and Kelly come from?

premierstone

Martin567 wrote: »

Is €90-100k a pittance? Most Presidents have probably been paid less than that in accordance with their salary before being elected. Whoever is President will presumably be doing the same job. Does it make sense that one candidate could cost three or four times what another one does? Is that candidate's performance likely to be so superior?

The pittance and monkeys for peanuts comments were in reply to the suggestion that €40k would be an ample salary.

keane2097

harpsman wrote: »

For alot of jobs, yes, but there are some jobs which carry alot of prestige and plenty of capable people would do them for nothing-for example if they decided that the next president of the USA was going to get paid nothing it wouldnt change the list of candidates.
Likewise alot of people would be gaa president for no pay. As a matter of interest what field did O Neill, Cooney, Brennan and Kelly come from?

lol probably not the greatest comparison considering the US President probably never puts a hand in his pocket for the rest of his life after finishing up!

O'Neill and Kelly were both teachers, not sure about the other two. Kelly is an MEP now.

bruschi

harpsman wrote: »

For alot of jobs, yes, but there are some jobs which carry alot of prestige and plenty of capable people would do them for nothing-for example if they decided that the next president of the USA was going to get paid nothing it wouldnt change the list of candidates.
Likewise alot of people would be gaa president for no pay. As a matter of interest what field did O Neill, Cooney, Brennan and Kelly come from?

you're joking right? how the hell would they survive doing a full time job and get no money for it. they dont get a free house and everything paid for them you know.

nice_guy80

I'd like to know what money McKenna is on...

seligehgit

Forgive my ignorance and I'm open to correction but I've always been under the impression that the GAA president's role is largely a honorary position, symbolic to some degree.The holder attained the role through long term GAA service,politicking...Congress is where it all happens.Have things changed?There's no formal qualifications required for the job/specific job description?I know Sean Kelly was instrumental in opening up of Croke Park to rugby.

Surely Padraic Duffy as director general has a far more significant role,ditto Peter McKenna as stadium director in Croke Park.
I find it hardly credible that 40K is less than the average wage in Ireland,are we still in the Celtic Tiger era?Any figure in excess of 100K would'nt be acceptable IMO.

Toblerone1978

Martin567 wrote: »

Most Presidents have probably been paid less than that in accordance with their salary before being elected. .... Does it make sense that one candidate could cost three or four times what another one does? Is that candidate's performance likely to be so superior?

My understanding is that under the current system, a GAA president is paid the same salary as paid by his employer before he became President e.g. if a postman earned €45k a year and got the President job, he would earn €45k a year by GAA as presidennt. I think this is the fairest way, especially for an organisation like GAA, which is hugely based on ideals.

For Christy Cooney, that salary was huge because of his pay in FAS. But no one can accuse Christy of taking the GAA president job for financial reasons, he didn't gain financially (or lost out) when compared to his FAS job. The only reason why he was paid more than others is because he had a handy number with FAS before he joined.

It also means the person going for the GAA President job is being paid the "market" rate i.e. he is being paid what he would get elsewhere in the market.

Martin567

Toblerone, your understanding is correct and you've only further emphasised my point as to the problem with the current system. Two different candidates would potentially get massively different salaries for doing the same job!

Surely a job is worth a particular salary. If someone is paid an inflated salary in their employment, why should the GAA have to match this figure? Especially as there are likely to be equally competent candidates who could do the job at a far lower cost.

keane2097

Martin567 wrote: »

Toblerone, your understanding is correct and you've only further emphasised my point as to the problem with the current system. Two different candidates would potentially get massively different salaries for doing the same job!

Surely a job is worth a particular salary. If someone is paid an inflated salary in their employment, why should the GAA have to match this figure? Especially as there are likely to be equally competent candidates who could do the job at a far lower cost.

I think you're really missing the point.

The job is worth a hell of a lot more than most of the presidents are getting for it. If you want to set a flat rate for it and pay it to everyone, it's going to probably literally be an order of magnitude bigger than what it usually is under the current system.

This is really the opposite of a corporate fat cat set up, you're issues with it seem very wrong headed to me. I doubt even Cooney's PS salary that was matched by the GAA compared favourably with the salary of the CEO of any organisation comparable to the GAA.

Toblerone1978

keane2097 wrote: »

This is really the opposite of a corporate fat cat set up, you're issues with it seem very wrong headed to me. I doubt even Cooney's PS salary that was matched by the GAA compared favourably with the salary of the CEO of any organisation comparable to the GAA.

Very much in agreement with this.

For those who refer to these presidents as 'fat cats', need to remember that (a) everyone of those presidents has done a huge volume of volunteer work for the GAA and (b) they do not gain financially!

Martin567 wrote: »

Two different candidates would potentially get massively different salaries for doing the same job!

Surely a job is worth a particular salary. If someone is paid an inflated salary in their employment, why should the GAA have to match this figure? Especially as there are likely to be equally competent candidates who could do the job at a far lower cost.

I do get your point but if we go down that road I think, as Keane pointed out below, we would actually really inflate the salary (other than the public sector, the GAA is the biggest organisation in the country so the salary would be quite big) and you would have people going / not going for the top job due to financial reasons which I belive goes against the ethos of the GAA.

Martin567

keane2097 wrote: »

I think you're really missing the point.

The job is worth a hell of a lot more than most of the presidents are getting for it. If you want to set a flat rate for it and pay it to everyone, it's going to probably literally be an order of magnitude bigger than what it usually is under the current system.

This is really the opposite of a corporate fat cat set up, you're issues with it seem very wrong headed to me. I doubt even Cooney's PS salary that was matched by the GAA compared favourably with the salary of the CEO of any organisation comparable to the GAA.

I'm not missing the point. Maybe you're just arguing some other point!

I never said anything about a fat cat setup, I'm simply pointing out the unfairness of the current setup. To take an earlier example, if one candidate is a postman and the other is a CEO of a PLC then there will be a huge difference in their existing salaries. But the GAA President will be the same job whoever wins so it should have a value attached to it. The postman might well make the better President!

On a side issue, I have no doubt that any President will have done a huge amount of volunteer work over the years. They will have had to work their way up through the organisation. I do struggle to understand how anyone could have the spare time to progress to this level while earning a CEO level salary in their day job. I only earn a fraction of some of the figures mentioned and I wouldn't have that much spare time. I would expect someone earning that salary level to be so wedded to their job and have such time pressures that they simply couldn't devote the necessary time to the GAA to reach the very top.

RoyalCelt

bruschi wrote: »

so you think that the head man of an organisation, with a turnouver of €55,000,000, with over 1,000,000 members worldwide, over 2,600 participating clubs in Ireland, with €2.6bn worth of assets, should be paid less than the average wage in Ireland?

seriously?

you pay for what you get. its a tough job, and the best people should be doing it, not the cheapest. I dont expect them to be on a CEO salary like some rehab boss, but I do expect them to be properly paid to do a proper job.

OK point taken. But I still think they need to bring in a cap of around 70k (I revised this after what you said). It's stupid that one president gets reimbursed for 160k a year and the next might only get reimbursed for 50k a year. And you won't get the cheapest because every president is voted in. It's not like you can say I will do it for 10k vote for me.

RoyalCelt

Martin567 wrote: »

I'm not missing the point. Maybe you're just arguing some other point!

I never said anything about a fat cat setup, I'm simply pointing out the unfairness of the current setup. To take an earlier example, if one candidate is a postman and the other is a CEO of a PLC then there will be a huge difference in their existing salaries. But the GAA President will be the same job whoever wins so it should have a value attached to it. The postman might well make the better President!

On a side issue, I have no doubt that any President will have done a huge amount of volunteer work over the years. They will have had to work their way up through the organisation. I do struggle to understand how anyone could have the spare time to progress to this level while earning a CEO level salary in their day job. I only earn a fraction of some of the figures mentioned and I wouldn't have that much spare time. I would expect someone earning that salary level to be so wedded to their job and have such time pressures that they simply couldn't devote the necessary time to the GAA to reach the very top.

Martin I'm with you on this. We are the GAA, a "charity", community organization. There are plenty of people willing to be the president and would do an excellent job if they were being paid 50k-70k. I just don't agree with a guy coming from FAS getting paid more than he should there to begin with and getting the same money for heading the GAA. Countless others will do just as good a job for a set salary around 50-80k.

I hope the GAA cut administration costs (despite them not being too bad) because every 100k saved can go a long way to helping out a club in this country.

nice_guy80

I think before the recent GAA presidential race the candidates stated how much they would be paid.

RoyalCelt

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I think before the recent GAA presidential race the candidates stated how much they would be paid.

any idea what the new cavan guy will be paid? think he's a teacher so not to much if true. That's good because I'd hate to see someone come in with a 100k plus wage.

harpsman

bruschi wrote: »

you're joking right? how the hell would they survive doing a full time job and get no money for it. they dont get a free house and everything paid for them you know.

A retired teacher, which ONeill and Kelly apparently are would be on a pension of at least 30K, which along with a generous expenses regime would be enough to survive on for somebody with their family reared and mortgage paid off.
But apart from that there are people out there who are independently wealthy-it might be family money or they might have been successful in their life,or both.

harpsman

keane2097 wrote: »

lol probably not the greatest comparison considering the US President probably never puts a hand in his pocket for the rest of his life after finishing up!

O'Neill and Kelly were both teachers, not sure about the other two. Kelly is an MEP now.

The comparison was for illustration purposes only,dont get too hung up on it. Im actually in favour of paying the gaa top brass a decent salary. I was merely making a general point that there are certain high profile jobs that alot of people would do for no salary,particularly where their expenses would be reimbursed,like here.