Ex-presidents 'powerless' after Rule 5 omission

THE committee of former GAA Presidents who vetted motions for the annual Congress were powerless to amend the controversial proposals relating to the use of Croke Park.

Specifically, none of the motions quoted the text of an amendment to Rule 5, which spells out that the Association and its resources can be used solely in accordance with the stated aims.

Former president Jack Boothman pointed out that those who had put forward the motions had ignored the fact that they were calling for a major change of policy in the Association.

"I have always argued that they are attacking it from the wrong end that they should change the policy first and then talk about the mechanics of opening Croke Park, or any ground," the Wicklow native said yesterday.

"It's the policy that's the important thing at present and they avoided the issue of saying that they want to open Croke Park for soccer and rugby.

"I think it's significant that neither of those two names have been mentioned in any of the motions I saw. And yet, that's the basic principle under which they operating.''

Mr Boothman said: "What they were asking us to do and this is the third or fourth year they are asking is to let motions go on the clár without giving the text of the amended Rule 5.

"That would be too big a step for Congress to take ... delegates would vote on a motion not knowing the implications because Rule 5 is not mentioned, or the amended text of Rule 5 is not provided.

"It's not our mandate to write the text of motions. We have no power at all to do that. Our power is limited to examining the motion.

"If it is basically in order and fulfils the requirements of the rules, we are then allowed to tweak it a little under Rule 78.

"We are not empowered to write text for the aftermath of a rule change. It seems to me that some of them have not even read Rule 5. They do not know its implications.

"The way I look at it, Rule 5 is policy, Rule 42 is 'mechanics.' In other words, if Rule 5 is changed, Rule 42 doesn't need to because Central Council has the power (in Rule 42) to use our facilities for activities not in competition with the policies of the GAA.

"If Rule 5 is changed, to say that rugby and soccer are not in competition with the aims and ideals of the Association, then there would be no problem with Rule 42. It's as simple as that, but they don't have to courage to say it.''

Meanwhile, criticisms of the ex-presidents being too old to carry out their duties were described as "grossly insulting".

"We may not be in the full bloom of youth, but I don't think any us would be considered a doddering old fool,'' said Pat Fanning from Waterford the sitting president when the infamous 'Ban' rule was dropped in 1971.

Another former president, who did not wish to be identified, hit back at comments made by former Roscommon chairman Tommy Kennoy who called the rejection of the motions "nazi-like behaviour".

"He must have a profound ignorance of the philosophy of nazism if he can equate what we did to acts of nazism,'' he stated.

Boothman also challenged suggestions, that he and his colleagues were "out of touch" with modern day society.

"I would resent that bitterly. I would regard that as a gross insult to people, not me, but those who have been at the forefront of the Association for a lifetime.

"They are still as young at heart as any of the fellows coming through. They have principles and they adhere to them. They articulate the policy of the Association as strongly as they did when they were presidents.''

Reluctant to be drawn into the controversy (on the basis that it had been a confidential meeting), Con Murphy from Cork stressed that the ex-presidents and the president always treated Association business with the utmost respect and sincerity.

"People should bear in mind that this was a question of adjudicating not on the merits of motions but on them being in accordance with procedure that would entitle them to be on the agenda,'' he explained.

Pat Fanning echoed this view, saying that the merits of demerits of motions were not of concern to them.

"Other motions were ruled out of order and I'm sure they're of equal importance to the sponsors.

"We took a decision under the rules governing our appointment as members of the committee. In our view they were out of order. The amendment to Rule 5 wasn't quoted.''

Personally, Mr Boothman said he would have favoured the matter being debated at next month's Congress, adding that he was disappointed that no motion was found to be in order.

"The image portrayed by everybody in the media is that there is an overwhelming outcry all over Ireland to open Croke Park. I still travel as much as anyone within the Association and I have never met this.

"I was in Tyrone on Friday (for Cormac McAnallen's funeral) and I met a lot of people in the clubhouse later. None of them said 'will ye open Croke Park'. Everyone who spoke to me said 'don't open Croke Park'.

"On Saturday I was in Ballymena, speaking at a dinner and nobody there said 'open Croke Park'. People deliberately sought me to tell me not to.

"This has been my experience over the last three to six months, because people would know my views on the subject. I argue from a business, pragmatic point of view not from emotion. I have never mentioned 'foreign games' in my forty-something years in the Association. I always talked about rival organisations competing for our main source of power, which is the youth of the country.

"That's why I refuse to accept that we have to open Croke Park to allow soccer and rugby to make money to take us on in the market place. It's as simple as that. We must maintain every advantage we have.''