Decision not down to Kelly

GAA President Sean Kelly has not ruled out a temporary derogation of Rule 42 being decided by a simple majority of delegates at the upcoming Congress in April.

While this would substantially increase the chances of a landmark change of policy to permit rugby and soccer to be played in Croke Park, Mr Kelly said yesterday that it would 'probably' be a decision for the Management Committee and the Central Council, making it clear, it wouldn't just be a matter of him ruling on it.

"It would not be just a change of rule, but also a change of policy,'' he commented.

As exclusively reported in The Irish Examiner yesterday, the Motions Committee cleared a majority of motions on the Croke Park issue for debate at Congress. Reacting to the formal announcement from Croke Park, Mr. Kelly dismissed as 'outlandish' a suggestion in one paper that it would be 'a resigning matter' for him if the relevant motions had been ruled out of order for a second year running.

Seven counties had motions passed for debate after being re-submitted. Tommy Kennoy from Roscommon and ex-Munster chairman Noel Walsh, both acknowledged that they will consult with other interested counties over the next two months to map out their strategy for Congress.

The counties which cleared the latest 'barrier' include Kerry, Longford and Cavan, who all propose a transfer of authority to the Central Council to decide on the use of Croke Park 'for other sports, along with Roscommon and Sligo who favour Rule 42 being set aside for the duration of the Lansdowne Road redevelopment.

Wicklow had their motion incorporating both proposals accepted, and while Clare put the same proposals forward in separate motions, they were informed that they would have to be paired in a single motion - a sanction which Walsh (the proposer of the motions) said they had no choice but to accept. A Clare motion seeking for a referendum of clubs was rejected. Four counties, Dublin, Wexford, Laois and Offaly, who had re-submitted motions were again ruled out of order.

The Dublin motion was different to the others, on the basis that it proposed to involve the Croke Park company (Croke Park Teo) in the process of deciding on the use of the stadium.

On the issue of the temporary amendment to Rule 42 - essentially recommended by four counties - Walsh expressed the view that the President "had the authority" to rule whether or not it would require a simple majority to be passed. However, former Roscommon Chairman Tommy Kennoy doesn't take this view.

"I have been talking to a number of experienced GAA people, and I have been reading the rules very closely, and it does appear that a two-thirds majority will be needed. However, that will be down to Sean Kelly.

"But I am happy that the motion will come before Congress. We can start a campaign now. It will take a big campaign for the motion to be successful,'' said Kennoy.

Mr Walsh voiced dissatisfaction with the ruling that their two proposals would have be taken together in the one motion.

"I would have preferred if they were voted on separately, but we have no alternative but to accept the ruling,'' he commented. "By tieing the two of them together, it would take a two-thirds majority to have the motion passed."

Sligo chairman Joe Queenan stressed that their motion refereed specifically to Croke Park and Croke Park only. "We envisage the re-development of Lansdowne Road taking around 30 months and we feel that will be the length of time that Croke Park needs to be opened,'' he said.

For his part, the GAA President expressed his satisfaction that the 'barrier' to having a debate on the Croke Park issue had been overcome.

"Now it's a question of people having a discussion on it and making a decision. It's a major step forward and I am very pleased about it.''

He described the (new) process of allowing counties to re-submit motions after an initial examination as 'a vindication' of the decision taken at the Special Congress last November. "It had nothing to do with me personally, but I was concerned about the democratic rights of individuals to have their voices heard and the damage to the image of the Association after motions were ruled out of order last year,'' he added.

Resignation was the furthest thing on his mind, he said, commenting: "many people I met felt that was an outlandish suggestion, that I should resign if motions did not make the Congress Clár. That kind of talk was a bit dramatic.''

Mr. Kelly also defended the ex-Presidents, who had been severely criticised last year. They were, he said, 'very conscientious' people of the highest integrity.

"They had a job to do, according to rule and it nothing to do with their own personal views (on the issue) or anything like that, even though some of them would be against any change,'' he added. "Other people had surmised that there would be only one motion on the Clár and that it would be the one with the least chance of succeeding. That proved to be incorrect. What we have now is a variety of motions.''

*In the interest of 'transparency,' Mr. Kelly has asked that counties who had motions ruled out of order be given the 'exact reason'. This would help them to see that the process was based on the rules 'and nothing else.'