GAA ‘should open Croker’ during Lansdowne makeover

THE GAA should seriously consider making Croke Park available for soccer and rugby for the two years while Lansdowne Road is being developed.

That was the demand of Sligo delegate Ciaran McDermott, at the Central Council meeting which preceded last night's annual Congress in Killarney.

At the same meeting, there was strong criticism of the "shameful" treatment of the ex-Presidents, who ruled motions from eight counties on the Croke Park issue out of order, with Association President Sean Kelly promising a "root and branch" analysis of the system to facilitate clubs in forwarding motions.

Meanwhile, a proposal to call a Special Congress to debate Rule 42 was strongly rejected.

Mr McDermott, a member of the GAC, said it was "incumbent" on them to have a debate about Croke Park being made available as an "alternative venue" while Lansdowne Road is out of commission.

Describing it as a "halfway" motion, he said it would be conditional on the Government in money terms treating the Association equally with the IRFU and the FAI.

Mr Kelly said that at the request of the Government, they had made a very detailed submission, not just about Croke Park, but in relation to Coaching and Games, Dublin (development), hurling and grounds in general.

"We would be hoping to get a quick response," he commented.

Mayo delegate Paddy Muldoon said that they "should not be discussing the matter at all", until they were officially asked for the use of Croke Park by the IRFU or the FAI.

"In my part of the country, they have a saying, 'it's a bad dog that's not worth whistling for'. I don't think we should be offering anything until we are officially asked and I heard an ex-President of the FAI last Tuesday night saying publicly, he wouldn't stand in it. So, I'd like to hear them ask for it and then we'll make our decision."

Responding, the President said there was "another" side to the case. He said: "They may not wish to ask when they know that our rules tie us at the moment and the answer would have to be no."

In the view of Mr Muldoon, the "silent majority" of the membership wanted an approach to be made by the sports bodies and not by politicians.

In relation to the criticism of the ex-Presidents, Mr Kelly said the nature of some comments was "unnecessary, unfair and unjust".

As a member of the motions committee, he accepted that decisions were taken on the basis of the rules, but felt the system in place was inadequate.

"This inevitably led to disappointment and anger, but I believe those given the responsibility for applying the system should not be pilloried for this inadequacy. They were the victims of a legacy that has not been addressed."

Dan McCartan (Down) said he found it "very disturbing" that the ex-Presidents were subjected to "a deplorable public attack by our own members. They were denigrated and it was shameful that their motivation, good faith and integrity were called into question by our own people".

Cork delegate Bob Honohan said that the ex-Presidents were the men who were in touch with the real values of the Association.

"They refused to bend the rules to satisfy some factions. It would have been much easier to turn a blind eye and allow a debate to take place which they probably wanted.

"But they are men of integrity and they didn't do that," he commented.

Tommy Kennoy (Roscommon), one of the biggest critics of the decision to rule the motions out of order, said it made a mockery of the democratic strength of the Association and it was a public relations disaster.