GAA ‘bullied’ into Liam Miller match agreement, while decision forced rulebook revision

Last September’s Liam Miller tribute game controversy has prompted the GAA to make a significant change to its rulebook, director general Tom Ryan revealed yesterday.

Ryan confirmed central powers have recommended a motion similar to one put forward by Clare’s Noel Walsh to empower Central Council to make available GAA grounds as well as Croke Park to other sports. As it stands, they have only have that authority for Croke Park arising from a rule change in 2010 following the hosting of rugby and soccer games between 2007 and ‘09.

Just 37.9% of delegates backed the Miltown-Malbay proposal in 2015 and only 23.5% the following year, but Ryan said former Munster chairman Walsh’s idea will be “the thrust of the motion that will be coming from Central Council”.

Explaining in his annual report that the GAA was going to act at next month’s Congress to “address that perceived ambiguity” in its property rules, he conceded Central Council’s interpretation of the Official Guide was stretched so as to host the Miller soccer match in Páirc Uí Chaoimh.

After making the call, Ryan said Central Council were compelled to have Congress this year ratify their stance in the rulebook.

The green light for the charity event followed a week of controversy in late July where the GAA was criticised from several quarters. Ryan slammed the manner in which he felt the organisation were “bullied” into hosting the game when they likely would have done so in their own time.

He also stressed they made the decision as to not “find a way” would have done the GAA “more reputational damage, however unjustified”.

The GAA’s Official Guide Part 1 Rule 5.1 reads: “All property including grounds, club houses, halls, dressing rooms and handball alleys owned or controlled by units of the Association shall be used only for the purpose of or in connection with the playing of the games controlled by the Association, and for such other purposes not in conflict with the aims and objects of the Association, that may be sanctioned from time to time by the Central Council.”

With two days’ notice, Central Council convened last July to agree on an understanding of Rule 5.1 to facilitate the game.

As Ryan explained: “We are permitted, under certain circumstances, to use the grounds where it’s not in contravention of the aims of the Association.

We’d reached a stage where the groundswell of opinion was such that, by not holding the game, you were actually compromising the aims of the association in terms of reputation and goodwill.

“You could argue that some of the aims of the association extend into community and being a force for good in the country. That’s the interpretation we had to take and look at the broader picture — are we doing more damage to the Association by relying on a very, very literal interpretation of what’s in the rulebook? And does the spirit of what’s intended allow us to undertake the route we took?

“I don’t mind admitting it was a stretch of things. That’s the part that was probably the most uncomfortable about the whole thing. I’m still a little bit reluctant to get into too much detail. The whole year should be about football and hurling and not that particular game.

“I really don’t want it to come across as mean-spirited. It was a charity game, it was great that it was played, great that it benefitted the cause that was intended. It just put us in a really, really difficult place and we had to find a creative enough way to go ahead with playing the game.”

Speaking of behalf of Central Council, Ryan admitted there was no sense of satisfaction in the body bringing the matter to a close.

In his report, he wrote: “I don’t think any of us were enthusiastic about the outcome we reached. The overwhelming sentiment being that we felt we had been bullied into a course of action that we might well have taken anyway if give the chance.”

Without naming names, he took great exception to comments like those of Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport Shane Ross who intimated because redeveloped GAA stadia are publicly funded they should be made available to other sports.

“There was an inference at the time that the GAA should be under some moral, if not legal, compulsion to allow the use of our pitches for other sports because the Association, or the specific pitch, had received public funding. This is not factually correct and is not morally defensible. Any funding we receive is, and should continue to be, predicated solely on the intrinsic value of Gaelic Games.

I am not aware of any other sporting organisation being assessed on the degree to which it promotes rival sports. And nor should they be.