Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Liam Miller - An Irish Solution To An Irish Problem

Options
123578

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    WanderlustIre
    Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭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?


  • Options
    #123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    WanderlustIre wrote: »
    Are you a member?

    Of a GAA club?

    I'm from Kerry, of course I am.


  • Options
    #124
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #125
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,298 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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...


  • Options
    #128
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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?


  • Options
    #129
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #130
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Options
    #131
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Options
    #133
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users Posts: 18,377 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Options
    #134
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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....


  • Options
    #135
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #136
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,100 ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • Options
    #137
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #138
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,100 ✭✭✭✭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 ?


  • Options
    #139
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #140
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #141
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,100 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #143
    WanderlustIre
    Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #144
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #145
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,100 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #146
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #147
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #148
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,388 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #149
    WanderlustIre
    Registered Users Posts: 494 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #150
    Clareman
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional Midwest Moderators Posts: 23,934 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Bonniedog
    Registered Users Posts: 6,665 ✭✭✭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 :-)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement