Mulvihill denies anti lobby support claims

THE GAA’S Director-General Liam Mulvihill yesterday dispelled suggestions that he had come out in support of the anti lobby in relation to the use of Croke Park for soccer and rugby.

Specifically, he stressed that what he wrote in his annual report must not be construed as opposing the much-publicised stance taken by Association President Sean Kelly.

"That would have been the last thing in my mind, to be seen to be coming out against Sean," he said. "It would not be in my nature and would never be my intention."

In any case, Mr Mulvihill pointed out that he had written this particular section of his report around Christmas which was well in advance of a number of debates at county conventions on the 'opening up' of the stadium and, more recently, the rejection of eight motions relating to Rule 42 by the vetting committee comprising the ex-Presidents. In different circumstances, he could have re-written parts of his report while it was at the draft stage, but an illness and subsequent hospitalisation made that impossible. Mr Mulvihill is now recuperating at home and is not expected back at work until Congress at the earliest.

Speaking yesterday, he stressed that his intention from the outset was to give "the two sides of the story" in relation to the use of Croke Park. At the same time, he said he understood how the view could be taken that he was opposing the "opening up" of the stadium because of the strong case he outlined on that side of the debate!

"I thought it would be seen that I was giving the two sides of the story. I have often done that before, about other debates. If it was read in a different way, that was not my intention at all, to be quite honest," he said.

"I felt it would be healthy to have a debate on the subject that was why I wrote on it. And that was why I was putting forward the two sides. Otherwise, it's not a proper debate!"

He explained that at the stage he was writing his report, 'all the comment (on the Croke Park issue) was very much one-sided.'

"I just felt that it was only fair that the two sides of the story be put. And, there are very clearly two sides. I had a lot of my report done before 'other things' unfolded.

"I had no intention of being seen to come down on one side or another. And, the whole thing was written before I knew there wasn't going to be any motions on the subject at Congress."

On the broader front, Mr Mulvihill remarked that 'all sorts' of figures had been quoted in relation to the possible financial benefit to the GAA of hosting a rugby or soccer international in Croke Park.

Many of them were 'much uninformed,' he added.

"Some people have said here and there that figures should be produced. But, obviously we won't produce them until we're told to or unless there was a decision taken by Central Council to investigate the commercial potential. That would be very sensitive information. It would be one thing to investigate it. It would be another thing in terms of deciding how widely you'd disperse it. Obviously it would be of major interest to the other sporting organisations."