Fann Linn wrote: » Should it make any difference if it was a family new to the club with shy kids being verbally abused by a coach?
BrianBoru00 wrote: » Yes. It makes a huge difference. The slant on the article is that two children were ostracised and the club circled the wagons to enhance this. As I said there's an awful lot more to the story and there's a lot of history here which was not even alluded in the article. But its a well known member of the club who is the parent and there own track record as coach of underage teams is not perfect either.
Fann Linn wrote: » But the club did circle the wagons and acted contrary to GAA HQ.
Glass fused light wrote: » You just don't get it. The fact that there was a lot more to the story and a lot more history is why what the club did was so wrong. No excuses. No mitigation. 100% wrong. The breach of confidentiality, was the individual members involved proving that if there was a conflict they would continue infighting at the risk of the safety of a child. The report was about two 10 year old children. How serious did a complaint have to be before the club took responsibility to deal with the problem. The child protect process should never be about the popularity or success of any coaches, parent or child. If the club implements the guidelines and a process correctly it's a shield which can't be used as a weapon. While the adults may have all have been dicks and could be pulling out measuring tapes to prove it, the club should have had a child protection policy and an actual process capable of dealing with the conflict and protecting the children, or at least recognise that they (the club) needed help. Not only did the club prove that they had no such process. They proved that they would not just ignore the process HQ put in place to deal with the report. They proved that they would actively and deliberately sabotage the process.
BrianBoru00 wrote: » Again, Nowhere did I contradict this. And I stated in my first post on the matter that the club has handled it atrociously - in fact its a text book example of what not to do. My problem is the tone and the sensationalism and lack of balance. "The story every GAA parent should read" implying this to be a widespread issue in GAA clubs. It's not and there has been huge work put in to identify new roles for child protection officers and liaison officers etc. to eradicate and prevent problems. Anyone who takes the time to read it all and understand what has happened would see Athenry as a rogue club in this context with National and county levels taking action when they were not happy with the clubs own handling of the situation. I'm horrified at the actions of the club but I've also experience of situations with parents who are basically sh*t stirrers. In any case I've dealt with I would ascertained all the facts from each partys point of view -some of which will be explicitly off the record (there will be "well known" but "unproven" facts about people etc). There is never a 100% right or 100% wrong. As a coach I would be particularly welcoming to children from families new to the area or who wouldn't have an experience with the GAA - Its important to take time with these people to involve them whereas I'd feel less of a need with children of former team mates for example as they're going to keep coming anyway. There's one coach named and comes across badly. True language like that should not be used liberally with young children. But that's one negative. There are an awful lot of positives to that coach as well - as quoted in the article "the kids are mad about.." the coach. Another point - an U10 or U11 are not allowed to play U14 - as per GAA rule book. The secretary who remained in the dug out was I understand telling the children this - they were given the jersey on that occasion but they would not be allowed to again as per official rules (another rule brought in to improve child welfare). . . Now how he said it, what tone or what language used will be known by him and the two children. Perhaps the tone was aggressive -We don't know for sure. There's quite a bit of history as I understand it but the fact is that sensationalist headlines catches the eye and in the advertisements for the paper - many times more people will have heard the headline "The GAA story every parent must read" than will read the article as written. And particularly if they are not a "GAA family" it might dissuade them from joining a club thinking that this carry on is typical - It's not
blanch152 wrote: » None of the details of the case matter. We shouldn't be able to talk about it because it should have been kept confidential by the club. The club is the problem. If the whole story was made up by the two lads, if the parents are complete dicks, if they bullied their way into the U-14s, if the maligned coach was only having one bad day and only uttered two swear words, etc. etc., it doesn't matter. The only issue is that the club broke the confidence of a child protection process. That is just so serious that the truth or otherwise of the allegations just don't matter. It is quite scary to see how the club don't realise this and how so many people on the internet don't either.
BrianBoru00 wrote: » Who on the internet are you referring to? Of course the details of the case matter. Where are you getting your information on the case? I
blanch152 wrote: » The details don't matter because only those involved in the confidential process should know about them.
danganabu wrote: » So you agree that Kimmage shouldn't have wrote the article?
blanch152 wrote: » Kimmage is neither here nor there, the club had wrongly put the issue in the public domain already. The one thing I am certain of is that the GAA were right to ban the club. The club needs to get its act together, apologise to the kids and their parents for the breach of confidentiality and ban the officials involved in the public meeting. Then, and only then, they need to have a confidential investigation into the claims. Do you agree with that?
BrianBoru00 wrote: Another point - an U10 or U11 are not allowed to play U14 - as per GAA rule book. The secretary who remained in the dug out was I understand telling the children this - they were given the jersey on that occasion but they would not be allowed to again as per official rules (another rule brought in to improve child welfare). . . Now how he said it, what tone or what language used will be known by him and the two children. Perhaps the tone was aggressive -We don't know for sure.
BrianBoru00 wrote: » This entire thread is a discussion of Kimmages article so to say its neither here nor there is putting your head in the sand in the same manner as the club officials. You either look at whole incident or cherry pick the parts to suit your own narrative which Kimmage has done. The club put the issue in the public domain - well truth be told it would have been in the public domain anyway, locally. The club then widened to reach of people. But now instead of it being localised on a Co. Galway town and to a lesser extent Galway GAA people it been broadbast to a national audience of hundreds of thousands of readers of the paper.
Happyilylost wrote: » A lot of inaccuracies in this part of your post. As high profile as the father is I'm not sure it changes the bones of the story.
blanch152 wrote: » So you want the blame the messenger? Typical. Kimmage would have no article if the club had kept quiet. Anyone have an update on whether they are going to get unbanned?
BrianBoru00 wrote: » Can you point out any inaccuracy? Your obviously close to the family in question as your repeating a point made in the article that the person in the dressing room had no business being there - thats not accurate - he was/is the juvenile secretary so has a large responsiblity for team lists and eligibility - yet another flaw in the article. The fact that he is not a selector does not mean he has no business being ther. There you go again cherry picking points. I'm not "Blaming the messenger" for the incidents. I'm "blaming the messenger" for writing a heavily biased piece implying this is the way things are "done" within the GAA .
BrianBoru00 wrote: Can you point out any inaccuracy?
BrianBoru00 wrote: Your obviously close to the family in question as your repeating a point made in the article that the person in the dressing room had no business being there - thats not accurate - he was/is the juvenile secretary so has a large responsiblity for team lists and eligibility - yet another flaw in the article. The fact that he is not a selector does not mean he has no business being ther.
Happyilylost wrote: » There was no issue with them playing U14. Only person upset by this was Paddy Kelly. He made his feelings known to John Cloonan. I still don't think John Cloonan should of spoken to them. Least he could of done was spoken to the U14 manager. But he knew he would get no change there so he spoke directly to the lads. It had nothing to do with player welfare or their age. He was supporting Paddy Kelly. Up to this point this is just adults being thick headed. Once John Cloonan spoke to these lads on his own in a dressing room (not a dugout) he basically gave the parent involved a winning lotto ticket and left it up to him if he decided if he wanted to cash it. When you dealing with a difficult parent you don't give him ammunition to attack you. The parent could of went to any number of organisations when his child was "detained" by a adult and gotten traction. Even at this stage it could easily of been dealt with. My issue starts from here and the way it was handled. No one can say it was handled well. So it ended up in the national media. Paddy Kelly, John Cloonan and the parents involved play for me a small role in this. On one small note again it's not in the article so I can't verify it. The U12 coach was asked by a number of people including those that supported him at the ill advised meeting to consider taking over an older age group as it was felt his "manner" was suited to an older group of kids. He knew a few of the kids involved so he stayed where he was. The issue with him began before these two kids.
Smith614 wrote: » Did the parents decide their kids were not playing u12 but playing u14 instead?
danganabu wrote: » For an alleged teacher your reading and comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired :rolleyes:
MayoAreMagic wrote: » In fairness he isn't shooting the messenger, he is pointing out that his message is in fact not a fair reflection of the facts of the story. I would agree with him on that front. I feel kimmage is using the thing to his own ends. I get the impression he has the gaa in his crosshairs and he selected details in this case that suited this agenda. If that is the case then he is hardly doing the kids in question any favours either is he?
evolving_doors wrote: » Is there a suggestion in the article that the GAA (national body) acted incorrectly! If anything they came off quite well as they followed child protection procedure.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » No I mean the gaa in general, as in those everyday people who are involved in the game itself. His take on jim gavin's comments on mayo last year - I felt he made a lot of it for what it actually was. He was a bit clumsy in his words maybe but not a whole lot else. It's not an easy thing to speak in font of reporters willing you to word something poorly and trying to catch you out. As for him not having a quip to reply, maybe the guy just isn't that witty, it isn't a crime. In this instance I feel he has crafted a kind of gaa caricature for the nation to take aim at.Yet many with genuine knowledge of the thing are saying that this is in fact not as straightforward as it appears and his reporting is not in fact a fair reflection. I cant help but feel his approach to reporting on gaa stories might have one eye on the actual game itself. The only time Ive heard him speak positively about gaa people, was about the mayo team, but that was part of his stick for beating gavin with. I'm curious if he has ever had a good word to say about the sport without it being part of some other point where he was looking to knock someone else...
evolving_doors wrote: » Ya I get ya, I haven't read much of kimmage so I'm just taking the transgressions of 2 people at face value. People speculating on the supposed motives of parents are just doing that...speculating. what happened wasnt speculation (swearing at kids and detention in dressing room, subsequent circling of wagons). I still think the national organisation as a whole came out of it ok in the article. So if he has an agenda his article didn't really help it.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Well what is most discussion on the internet, if not largely speculation? I don't think people can really be blamed for that. Indeed, many articles in papers are speculation also, or at the very least, one persons take on an event. I think some people seem to think that kimmage's take is gospel and the guy has just been before the courts. Id agree on the details you outlined above, but I'd also feel that it is important to try to deliver a full view of what exactly is the story, and the more information people have to make a decision the better I believe. I think kimmage wasn't really looking to do that, and his article reflected as much. To what end, I am speculating, but I would say he is pushing the stereotype of the over-aggressive, bad tempered gaa coach, who smokes in the dressing room, only cares about a win and horses young lads out of it at every opportunity, something like the d'unbelievables manager skit from years ago.
