Liam Miller - An Irish Solution To An Irish Problem

gormdubhgorm

eagle eye wrote: »

How muchiney have they got from the taxpayer over the years?

And how much have other sporting organisations received?

They get nothing I suppose?


http://www.the42.ie/funding-2014-fai-gaa-irfu-1419087-Apr2014/
(The comments on this article are interesting to say the least)


The fact is some organisations make better use of government money then others:

GAA = invest wisely plan structure (took a risk on building Croke Park when some from the FAI laughed, and hoped it would bankrupt them)

FAI = work on a wing and a prayer stumble from one crisis to another

IRFU = superbly run organisation that proves what good management can do in a professional outfit

doc_17

eagle eye wrote: »

How muchiney have they got from the taxpayer over the years?

Shur what the heck does that matter? There is a library in my town built by the taxpayer. So I can use it for purposes other than it was built for because it was built by public money? That sort of logic is astounding.

But the amateur organisation that is the target of so much ire from non-members is coming to the rescue of the professional organisation and the amateur organisation is getting the flak...

eagle eye

It's not an amateur organisation. The players aren't paid so they are amateur sportsmen and women.

Okon

Edgware wrote: »

At least Duff can go back to coaching the Rovers U 15 on the pitch paid for by the taxpayer

Which Dublin GAA also use to stage Féile na nGael matches!

(Although as long as they get Duff off RTE for the soccer I don't care where he goes.)

holyhead

I would imagine the Miller family must feel a sense of embarrassment over the whole hoopla associated with the tribute match to Liam. If the GAA had offered to host the game in the first place it would have avoided the whole rigmarole over this. I know Liam was primarily famous for soccer but as an integral part of every community across the country it would have been the decent thing to do. Hosting the game in PUC was always going to bring in a much larger kitty than an FAI venue, Aviva aside.

Hitman3000

gormdubhgorm wrote:

Yourself and your 'type' created the storm, it had little to do with charity motives I suspect.

You suspect? Clueless in other words.

Hitman3000

doc_17 wrote:

But the amateur organisation that is the target of so much ire from non-members is coming to the rescue of the professional organisation and the amateur organisation is getting the flak...

Why do you assume all commentators are non members?

WanderlustIre

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Why do you assume all commentators are non members?

Your definitely a non member

gormdubhgorm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You suspect? Clueless in other words.

How am I clueless? YOU are the proof!

It is you who is making completely unsubstantiated comments like.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Even when trying to save face the GAA manages to let their greed come to the fore.

Yet, you have the neck to call me clueless....



But, I realise that you are a 'so-called soccer-diehard' with an agenda, then it begins to make sense....

So can't be too hard on it's not your fault.

It's like talking to those fellas that are interviewed during a strike by the Dublin Taxi Union.
You know the type the fellas with the gobs who say little of substance, but are very loud, and are as about as articulate as a truck?

It only takes a few to bring down the rep of the rest.

I wouldn't tar all soccer people with that brush, just the worst bigoted kind.

The kind who look down on LOI domestic soccer (never attend) and 'support' British soccer and are anti-GAA.
It must destroy a person's mind from the inside.

c montgomery

Title should read GAA solution to a FAI problem

Hmmm, so the Liam Miller debacle is sorted out it seems. If the FAI had ran itself as a proper business organisation and as a consequence invested properly in Irish infrastructure (football grounds etc) down the years none of this nonsense would have happened in the first place. But a latent West Britism manifested itself in attacks on the GAA for not 'providing' a venue for this event. Would ye ever f*ck off...........

Hitman3000

gormdubhgorm wrote:

But, I realise that you are a 'so-called soccer-diehard' with an agenda, then it begins to make sense....

You would be wrong there bud. Not a soccer die hard at.

gormdubhgorm

c montgomery wrote: »

Title should read GAA solution to a FAI problem

Exactly!

The good plus point about all this is that with the publicity the extra charity game the GAA promised, it should make a load of money for the hospice.

Maybe in future in all seriousness, the GAA AND FAI could organise joint matches for this charity and make it a regular thing?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

West Britism...

And to see the GAA now colluding with the West Brits...a terrible state o' chassis...

gormdubhgorm

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmm, so the Liam Miller debacle is sorted out it seems. If the FAI had ran itself as a proper business organisation and as a consequence invested properly in Irish infrastructure (football grounds etc) down the years none of this nonsense would have happened in the first place. But a latent West Britism manifested itself in attacks on the GAA for not 'providing' a venue for this event. Would ye ever f*ck off...........

And the funny thing is most GAA people have no problem with opening PUC.

But suddenly there was a real panic and urgency created, the people with the agenda NOT the charity organisers wanted it NOW!

Then the usual red herrings were flown the GAA are dinosaurs, they get all the money, and someone mentions something about the catholic church!

Those with the agenda it boils down to jealously and resentment, and no sense of place or community.

STB.

Horan has to go.

That performance calling out government ministers etc belongs in the dark ages and will do years of pr damage to the organisation. All to save face of the executive.

His arrogance does not reflect the views at grassroots level.

doc_17

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Why do you assume all commentators are non members?

I didn’t. I was referring to the non-members sniping. I didn’t say all those giving the GAA flak are non-members. Why did you assume I was?

pat ticket

All this nonsense to play a charity game in a publicly funded stadium. Only in Ireland.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And to see the GAA now colluding with the West Brits...a terrible state o' chassis...

So you'll criticize the GAA no matter what decision it takes? Thought so.....

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So you'll criticize the GAA no matter what decision it takes? Thought so.....

You're getting far too excited.

Relax. I wasn't criticising the GAA. I was laughing at you railing about "West Brits".

WanderlustIre

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're getting far too excited.

Relax. I wasn't criticising the GAA. I was laughing at you railing about "West Brits".

Are you a member?

WanderlustIre

WanderlustIre wrote: »

Are you a member?

Of a GAA club?

I'm from Kerry, of course I am.

STB.

There are plenty of gaa members in the gaa forum.

They got it wrong not for the first time this year. There would be no public backlash including from the one from da soccer fans if the people getting paid as communications and pr directors were doing their jobs.

We need a management structure in croke park that is representative of the gaa communities on the ground.

Horan is a disgrace for that interview he did.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rtenews/status/1023236981864767488

lawred2

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Even when trying to save face the GAA manages to let their greed come to the fore.

Where is the greed?

Plenty stupidity, pig headedness and as always zero awareness of public relations but I'm not sure where the greed is!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You're getting far too excited.

Relax. I wasn't criticising the GAA. I was laughing at you railing about "West Brits".

Hmm, not surprised by the shallow analysis there. Rule 5.1.a could have sorted this all out but no, we had a prejudiced media feeding frenzy that you, among others, seemed to have been duped by.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmm, not surprised by the shallow analysis there...

Once you started shrieking about West Brits, I knew you were far too profound for me.

Anyway, to think the GAA have opened the gates to them...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Once you started shrieking about West Brits, I knew you were far too profound for me.

Anyway, to think the GAA have opened the gates to them...

There was a gate available via existing rules, but it was ignored in favour of sheeple inspired populist nonsense. You aren't seeing the big picture here are you?

Ash.J.Williams

eagle eye wrote: »

I'll tell you a little story from way back, 1991 to be exact.
I was at the gate going into a Connacht semi-final. A man ahead of me was carrying his young child who I'd guess was maybe three years old. He paid his money but was told by the man on the stall that he had to pay for the child as well. The man didn't have the money to pay for his child and was told the child couldn't go in unless he paid for him.
I intervened and paid for the child.

That ahole on the stall is a typical GAA type, a thick, stupid man who just goes along with stupid rules without ever thinking of the world from a broader standpoint.

I got very fed up of all the idiotic rules many years ago. I have no involvement with a club anymore, I go to the odd game nowadays, even though it pains me to give money to the gaa, but used to go to almost every game my county played annually.

The day I see a good man in charge with a bit of intelligence who has a realistic view of the wider picture I'll seriously contemplate getting involved again.

This whole fiasco could have been avoided if the thick, stupid types had not been involved.

You couldn't be anymore full of Crap

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a gate available via existing rules, but it was ignored in favour of sheeple inspired populist nonsense. You aren't seeing the big picture here are you?

I think if you shriek about West Brits loudly enough, you'll win people over to the point you are desperate to make.

Anyway, the philosophy and rationale behind the gate opening clearly bothers you. And good luck with that. Meanwhile, it seems like a lot of people simply welcome the GAA's volte-face.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I think if you shriek about West Brits loudly enough, you'll win people over to the point you are desperate to make.

Anyway, the philosophy and rationale behind the gate opening clearly bothers you. And good luck with that. Meanwhile, it seems like a lot of people simply welcome the GAA's volte-face.

Rules are already in place to facilitate events like this. Why are you ignoring the glaringly obvious?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Rules are already in place to facilitate events like this. Why are you ignoring the glaringly obvious?

So your point is that the GAA should have folded far earlier than they did, and should not have run the "it's prohibited under the rules" line a week ago?

Good. But take it up with them rather than repeatedly asking me if I know why I the GAA don't know their own rules. If that is the point you are hopping up and down about in post after post.

gormdubhgorm

STB. wrote: »

Horan has to go.

That performance calling out government ministers etc belongs in the dark ages and will do years of pr damage to the organisation. All to save face of the executive.

His arrogance does not reflect the views at grassroots level.

Yeah I'd agree he could perform a bit better.
He had a rabbit in the headlights look about him.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So your point is that the GAA should have folded far earlier than they did, and should not have run the "it's prohibited under the rules" line a week ago?

Good. But take it up with them rather than repeatedly asking me if I know why I the GAA don't know their own rules. If that is the point you are hopping up and down about in post after post.

As I said, theres nothing they can do to satisfy you at this stage so I don't see the point in continuing this tbh....

P_1

doc_17 wrote: »

Shur what the heck does that matter? There is a library in my town built by the taxpayer. So I can use it for purposes other than it was built for because it was built by public money? That sort of logic is astounding.

But the amateur organisation that is the target of so much ire from non-members is coming to the rescue of the professional organisation and the amateur organisation is getting the flak...

The difference in this case though is that it was specifically written in the contract for the funds that PuC was to be opened to other sports. Like the GAA can have their rules, nobody's telling them they can't, but in this instance I believe the public flak was justified.

Fr Tod Umptious

P_1 wrote: »

The difference in this case though is that it was specifically written in the contract for the funds that PuC was to be opened to other sports. Like the GAA can have their rules, nobody's telling them they can't, but in this instance I believe the public flak was justified.

Can someone actually post the text of this famous contract that we have heard so much about over the last week please ?

Hitman3000

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Can someone actually post the text of this famous contract that we have heard so much about over the last week please ?

It has been put out in the wider media , what the rules accompanying the 30 million were. Do you not find it strange that the GAA have not countered if it is not true?

Fr Tod Umptious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It has been put out in the wider media , what the rules accompanying the 30 million were. Do you not find it strange that the GAA have not countered if it is not true?

Can you sent a link to it, the actual text from the EU ?

STB.

When it comes to rules I think we can all agree that the gaa hierarchy pick and choose which ones they want to break.

Hitman3000

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Can you sent a link to it, the actual text from the EU ?

It's not difficult to look up state funding rules on the internet. Really easy in fact.

Fr Tod Umptious

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It's not difficult to look up state funding rules on the internet. Really easy in fact.

Go on then, find it and link it for me ?

It's the pure sign of a spoofer on boards when they tell someone else to source a claim they made.

Hitman3000

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

It's the pure sign of a spoofer on boards when they tell someone else to source a claim they made.

A link was posted to an article in the Irish Examiner that referenced the rules on this thread . Off you go and look . I'm not doing your research for you.

WanderlustIre

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Can someone actually post the text of this famous contract that we have heard so much about over the last week please ?

I asked twice yesterday, you will be waiting. It doesn't state that will have full text later and will post. It days under EU directive the GAA are entitled to open the stadia to outside organisation

STB.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Can someone actually post the text of this famous contract that we have heard so much about over the last week please ?

First off I am not interested in this arguement.

I guess you are genuinely interested. For the sake of interest, it's not a contract you should be looking for.

It's the findings of an EU investigation into whether the 30 million agreed in 2014 was illegal state aid.

That eu report published in July 2016 found that the state funding was not illegal. However in that 11 page report the decision also stated that “stadium could be rented out to other field sports”, and under the terms and conditions for the use of the stadium, it said that Pairc Ui Chaoimh “will be open to various users on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis”.


It further said that the Cork County Board “will rent out the Pairc Ui Chaoimh's facilities to third parties to organise sporting and other commercial events.”


The same section of the decision states that the Irish government “will monitor the use of the facility over a period of at least 15 years”.


“If the terms of the grant are not complied with, and the facility is not used as intended, this could result in the claw-back of aid,” the Commission warned at the time.

Fr Tod Umptious

STB. wrote: »

First off I am not interested in this arguement.

I guess you are genuinely interested. For the sake of interest, it's not a contract you should be looking for.

It's the findings of an EU investigation into whether the 30 million agreed in 2014 was illegal state aid.

That eu report published in July 2016 found that the state funding was not illegal. However in that 11 page report the decision also stated that “stadium could be rented out to other field sports”, and under the terms and conditions for the use of the stadium, it said that Pairc Ui Chaoimh “will be open to various users on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis”.


It further said that the Cork County Board “will rent out the Pairc Ui Chaoimh's facilities to third parties to organise sporting and other commercial events.”


The same section of the decision states that the Irish government “will monitor the use of the facility over a period of at least 15 years”.


“If the terms of the grant are not complied with, and the facility is not used as intended, this could result in the claw-back of aid,” the Commission warned at the time.

Thank you

So nothing is written in any contract as the earlier poster stated.

And does anyone actually have a link to that EU report from 2016 ?

I'm sure the GAA know what they are doing here, allowing outher sports bodies to use conference facities, gyms etc covers their obligations.

STB.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Thank you

So nothing is written in any contract as the earlier poster stated.

And does anyone actually have a link to that EU report from 2016 ?

I'm sure the GAA know what they are doing here, allowing outher sports bodies to use conference facities, gyms etc covers their obligations.

Hang on I'm not try to confuse you but you do know that the original grant agreement is the one the EU report is quoting from so yes those conditions do exist and have already been agreed to by the signatories from the GAA.

That funding agreement is not in the public domain. They only reason we know of some of its conditions is that they are cited in the EU published report on it investigation into whether the funding was illegal state funding. They had the funding agreement as part of that investigation.

The whole discussion on this 30 million was on foot of an article by a practising barrister (Tim O Connor) in the examiner who qouted extensively from the EU finding which in turn quoted conditions of the funding agreement in its published decision.

The 11 page decision should be available on

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/register

Edit: decision of EU into illegal funding attached

Ash.J.Williams

From what I made out from the one reference to the eu stipulations was once the GAA have a process (Congress) to allow everyone access to puc that's them covered. In reality though it just makes applications to use the stadium difficult

ted1

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

P_1 wrote: »

The difference in this case though is that it was specifically written in the contract for the funds that PuC was to be opened to other sports. Like the GAA can have their rules, nobody's telling them they can't, but in this instance I believe the public flak was justified.

Can someone actually post the text of this famous contract that we have heard so much about over the last week please ?

And it is specifically allowing it to be used for the rugby World Cup , thst meets the criteria.

Also if a request is Made there is an established process where it goes to congress and they can allow it.
The posters throwing out the above are grasping at straws but drowning when the facts are explained.

WanderlustIre

ted1 wrote: »

And it is specifically allowing it to be used for the rugby World Cup , thst meets the criteria.

Also if a request is Made there is an established process where it goes to congress and they can allow it.
The posters throwing out the above are grasping at straws but drowning when the facts are explained.

This is as I explained yesterday final decision is with Congress.

Clareman

I think it's great that a solution has been found and the game can go ahead, in the past reasons would have been found not to play the game now reasons have been found as to why to play the game. Hopefully now congress with vote to allow each county board decide what to do with their country grounds

Bonniedog

Don't want to get into trouble again so will keep it brief:

1) How can GAA Central Council over-ride a part of the organisation's own rules, as passed by Congress.

2) It is nonsense to believe that any organisation receiving state funding has to allow access to its facilities to anyone.

Are schools obligated to allow the local Church of Satan to hold sacrifices in the gym?


More to the point, will the Old Wesley hockey pitch looked after by Ross have to host five a side soccer?


Anyone up for a game :-)