Croker ‘may never play host to soccer or rugby’

DESPITE Saturday’s landmark decision to relax Rule 42, a number of delegates opposed to the move have pointed out that Croke Park may still never play host to a soccer or rugby international.

Croke Park lacks floodlights and segregated seating for international soccer matches, while agreements would also need to be hammered out with the FAI and IRFU over a number of other matters, most notably rent.

Former president Peter Quinn suggested last week that the GAA should charge up to €1.2m for every game, 10 times the figure which the FAI pays the IRFU for every international at Lansdowne Road. “We’ll abide by the decision, but all it has done is give power to Central Council delegates who are still representing all the 32 counties and overseas units, so it’s still not clear-cut what’s going to happen,” said Armagh’s Patrick Óg Nugent. “It may not (go any further). The point was made that no other organisations has even looked for the ground yet. Who knows? Maybe they might find that the costs are too extreme.”

Despite their disappointment, members of the No camp accepted Congress’ decision with dignity. Cork chairman Jim Forbes compared the vote to playing a match, saying there always has to be winners and losers. “On this day I’m on the losing side,” said Forbes, “but that’s democracy at work. I think the association will go forward,” said Armagh’s Joe O’Boyle, an ardent opponent of change.

“We talked about a split in the association when we got rid of the ban and Rule 21 but the association is as strong as ever. People didn’t walk away then and they won’t now.” O’Boyle’s fellow county man Eamonn McMahon was one of those delegates who, before the vote, painted a picture of soccer nets being put up in every GAA ground around the country if Rule 42 was passed. A slippery slope, he called it. Half an hour later he was expressing his absolute faith in the ability of Central Council to ultimately decide on the matter. “We trust Central Council - it is not some inanimate body not known to us. My chairman is a member of Central Council,” he said.

As for the victors, the overwhelming feeling was one of relief. Anthony Delaney, who first introduced a motion at the Laois convention in 1999, said: “there’s been an awful lot of work over the last number of weeks. We motivated clubs right around the provinces, getting in touch with people who we knew were very much on our side and we worked very hard.

“We picked out the counties who voted against us in 2001 and worked with the clubs in those counties. That’s something we kept to ourselves but there was a lot of work went on on the ground. It was the grassroots carried this one.” Other things mattered: five of the first six speakers were stridently against the motion and with a secret ballot to come, the wind was at their backs. Delaney kept their powder dry, electing to end, rather than start, with a bang. “I vowed after 2001 that I would leave it as long as possible before speaking. People forget what is said at the beginning. Thankfully, we got it right this time.”

Clare’s Noel Walsh, another proponent for change, said that the words of the past presidents did not carry the same weight on the Congress floor as they once did.

“There was a time, maybe 15 years ago, when the past presidents’ speeches would sway Congress delegates but that seems to be gone now. I’m delighted with the vote but there is a case now to assess should a two-thirds majority be necessary to change a rule of the association. It seems to be slightly undemocratic,” he said.