Weak leadership by GAA chiefs adding to fixtures chaos
This is the highpoint of the Championship. Qualifier fixtures are coming thick and fast and entire seasons hinge on the outcome of the next few games. Everything is at stake.
For a moment, itâs worth considering the investment, financial and human, which is put into a county team.
For example, the typical county board will spend approximately âŹ700,000 on its various panels. The vast majority of that money will be channelled into the senior squads. Itâs a huge lump of cash.
Then, there are the players. Selected to represent their counties, these amateur sportsmen sign up to a semi-professional programme. At the bare minimum, they train four evenings a week.
In counties like Donegal, they will do weights sessions in the morning and train again in the evening. And letâs not forget the frequent weekend sessions, or in the case of Armagh, frequent weekend training camps.
Given the huge sums of money involved and the massive sacrifice made by players and management teams (some of whom are not paid), it would seem entirely obvious that officials would make strenuous efforts to ensure that the county team is given the best opportunity possible to produce its best performance.
Why would a county board pump about a quarter of a million euro into a squad, ask players to put their lives on hold, then schedule a raft of club fixtures which will result in a third of the first team getting injured, leaving them unavailable to play in a Qualifier match? Bonkers? Of course it is. Itâs completely deranged. But thatâs precisely what happened in Derry last year.
The absence of proper rules and the lack of governance from county boards and Croke Park is creating perennial chaos.
In Antrim, the joy generated by the victory over Laois was diluted by the decision of three St Gallâs men to play a club match the night before the trip to Portlaoise. The three players were dropped.
CJ McGourty said the St Gallâs men were put in an impossible situation. The club game was a relegation fixture. St Gallâs were struggling for numbers, and the trio was asked to play.
The county board has since claimed it was willing to change the fixture. Maybe so, but in the end, it was the three players who suffered.
In Tyrone, a different regime is creating a different set of problems. Last week, 31-year-old Dermot Carlin announced his retirement from county football.
After spending so many months training with Tyrone, itâs difficult to fathom why players quit when the season reaches its peak.
Carlin revealed the frustration faced by squad players who donât get game-time for club or county.
Outlining the reasons which contributed to his retirement, the Killyclogher man said: âWe played Omagh [in a club league match] and I wasnât allowed to play because the Limerick game was coming up. Then we played Limerick and I didnât play.
âAt my age, I need to be playing football. I just need to be on the pitch.â It needs to be stressed these issues arenât confined to the counties which have been mentioned. This is a nationwide contagion.
But while the problems are causing huge upheaval and often intense distress, there is no real urgency about the search for a solution.
A major part of the problem is caused by the profound inanity of the GAA Rule Book.
Rule 6.21 states: âThe period of time during which senior inter-county players shall not be expected to fulfil inter-club championship fixtures prior to inter-county championship games, in the same code, shall be as follows: Senior inter-county championships: (1) All-Ireland finals â maximum 20 days. (2) All other games â maximum 13 days.â
Rule 6.21 is designed to ensure that county players donât play club games in the 13 days prior to a Championship match. The rule needs to be re-written.
It should simply state that county players are not expected to fulfil inter-club fixtures during the 13 days before an inter-county Championship match. That would stop all the madness caused by league fixtures.
The new rule would prevent players from being landed in the Catch-22 situations where if they play for their club they risk getting injured, but if they donât play for their club, they are considered selfish and disloyal.
County boards should also consider the implications of linking league status to the championship grades in which a club competes.
The bulk of discord caused by club fixtures stems from fear of relegation and demotion from the senior to the intermediate championship.
Remove that link between the league and club championship, allow teams to elect the grade that they want to play in, and a vast array of problems are solved instantly.
The benefits would be immense. Club league games could go ahead without interruption and club players would get a regular supply of fixtures.
Meanwhile, the county player, routinely riddled with guilt and frustration, can gain some peace of mind.
If the GAA at provincial and central level is sincere about its commitment to club competitions, then all parties are obligated to streamline the inter-county calendar.
If the vast majority of counties were knocked out of the Qualifiers by mid-July, there would be ample time for clubs to have unfettered access to their county personnel.
It needs to be acknowledged that the fixtures conundrum is complex.
But inertia and weak leadership by GAA officialdom is arguably a bigger problem.
Doctors differ and patients die. In the GAA, the doctors arenât even discussing a potential remedy.
On 18 December 2014 the Irish Examiner published a report on opposition to the development of the GAAâs Casement Park in Belfast. Some local residents were opposing planning permission for a much larger stadium being built on the site of the existing stadium.
Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents Association complained that the article breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) and Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) of the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Magazines.
The Residents Association complaint included a claim that the article contained three significant inaccuracies: a statement that opposition to the redevelopment had been whittled down to âabout a dozen individualsâ, an alleged acceptance of a compensation package by âthe vast majority of residentsâ, and reference to an alleged sliding scale of compensation.
The Association also complained that the article failed to distinguish between fact and comment and that the reporter should have sought a response from the Association in advance of publication.
The editor of the Irish Examiner stood over the article but offered the Residents Association a right of reply. It was subsequently clarified that the right of reply could either be a letter published or an article setting out the Residents Associationâs position. This offer was rejected by the residents as âinsufficientâ because, they said, the âegregious nature of the accumulated inaccuraciesâ required a published correction and an apology.
As a conciliated compromise could not be agreed the complaint was forwarded to the Press Ombudsman for a decision.
In regard to the disputed scale of compensation, the editor of the Irish Examiner provided the Press Ombudsman with a letter from the Group MD of part of the construction team appointed to the new Casement Park development. That letter stated that he had outlined the details of the sliding scale compensation package that was reported in the article to a representation from the Committee of the Residents Association at a meeting held on 3 April 2014. The Residents Association, in response, provided a submission that included a statement from a member of its Committee, who was acting chairman in April 2014, stating that no financial figure was specified at the meeting held on 3 April. He also stated that at no time after that meeting was a sliding scale of compensation, as outlined in the article, presented to the residents.
These are contradictory statements about what transpired at the meeting on 3 April 2014.
In addition, despite the submission of a very detailed complaint by the Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents Association, accompanied by comprehensive documentation, there is also inconclusive evidence in regard to the numbers of residents remaining opposed to the development and to the number of residents who might accept a compensation package were a package to be put to the residents.
In these circumstances, I find that the offer made by the editor of the publication of a right of reply, in which the Residents Association could put its views to readers, was an offer of sufficient remedial action to resolve the complaints made under Principles 1 and 2 of the Code of Practice.
7 May 2015.
The complainant appealed the decision of the Press Ombudsman to the Press Council of Ireland.
The appeal from the complainant was heard by the Press Council at its meeting on 3 July 2015. The Press Council decided to reject the appeal and to affirm the decision of the Press Ombudsman.
