Printable View
I'm a GAA fan myself (the games as opposed to the organisation/administrators) but I would agree with that. I browsed through the forums lately and it's pure juvenile rubbish. It reminded me of the BBC 606 forums which is complete muck also. Just pointless slagging matches with very little discussion. Not sure as to the extent of the bigotry but don't really want to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scram
You're a total Brit ! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MariborKev
Agree all that except for the Cricket (which is a game for picnics in the park and not a sport! :p). I only follow rugby when it’s Ireland, Leinster beating Munster or, Leinster, Connaught or Munster in the Heineken Cup.
Amazed at the posts above referring to sectarianism in the GAA when you see and hear Linfield and Glentoran fans chants at Setanta Cup games etc. These are not focused on anymore by the media because they choose to adopt the position that all is well, when they should be weeding out these bigots and throwing them out of every ground they travel to.
Far from being sectarian, the GAA Championship is the only real inclusive 32 County competition on the island and support and participation from all sides of all communities is encouraged, in Ulster and all the provinces, (despite the history of teams like Crossmaglen being harassed and brutalized by State forces.)
My only problem with the GAA elite (as opposed to the grass roots) is their apparent dislike and applying double standards to Ulster teams and Dublin teams and their fans, and this is reflected in RTE commentary with the appalling Pat Spillane etc.
Again this is all about perception really, a neutral watching both games would say that sun was better. But as an Ireland fan first and foremost, nothing comes close an competitive Ireland fixture for me, thats just my preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scram
On a general excitment level, I thought the Georgia home game was pretty good, as was the Italian away game. I was in bari and plenty non football fans said it to me when i got back how great they thought the game was. Of course the last min goal always helps forget some of the not good stuff that went beforehand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarrickFan
So some soccer fans don't have a chip on their shoulder, don't make me laugh.
http://foot.ie/forums/showthread.php?t=121098
Nice titled thread from an open minded soccer fan :rolleyes:
You will get idiots in all sports
Great exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by Source
i'm guessing none of the gaa "haters" are from Cork, Kerry or Kilkenny lol
I dunno, im a sports lover and love all sports involving ireland. Feel kinda sad to see some people hate GAA, LOI or their national team in anything
Stuttgart you are forgetting the Roman church there as well:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I've been to quite a few setanta Cup game sinvolving both Linfield and Glentoran and haven't heard anything untoward. Even the odd sectarian chant does not make football sectarian. Sure it is not perfect all clubs sign players irrespective of religion (there is very strong circumstantial evidence that one club did not for just less than 40 years in the past).Quote:
Originally Posted by Scram
The GAA have a policy to support "the struggle for national liberation" and attempts to modify it to the "unarmed struggle" were roundly defeated. Clubs, grounds and cups are named after convicted terrorists. Last month all Tyrone games were cancelled to facilitate a rally at a GAA ground that featured armed masked men. The official line is they were cancelled because of the hurling semi final but they scheduled plenrty of games for last sunday.
Do you also believe that the Orange Order are inclusive and non sectarian because they march through nationalist areas? :confused:
Were Joe Cahill, Kevin Lynch, Bobby Sands, Gerard & Martin Harte, lochrie, campbell (lovely family to name a GAA ground after btw) , Farrell, Leonard , hurson non sectarian?
Gspain, you should have attended one of those Glentoran Linfield games that regularly end in riots with robot cops trying to keep the peace.
Still quoting Kevin Myers.Quote:
The GAA have a policy to support "the struggle for national liberation" and attempts to modify it to the "unarmed struggle" were roundly defeated.
Still suspending rationality in favour of emotional terror.
Once I went into precise detail to explain to you what defines policy.
I have never heard the slightest reference to this as being GAA policy.
An ambiguous motion passed at a general congress in the middle of the Hunger Strike era some 30 years ago does not define as a GAA policy.
The motion was passed in 1979. This was only done after Rule 7 was modified to make the GAA "non party political" instread of "non political". Attempts were made to modify in 1980 to only support the "unarmed struggle" these were roundly defeated. No attempt has been made since.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Kevin Myers is not the only one to complain about this. Tom Woulfe from the Civil Service club tried for many years afterwards to make the GAA go back to being non political and to end the support for "the struggle for national liberation". It was a huge issue at the time also for the gardai.
These are actual facts. Perhaps you'd care to refute them if you can (Appreciate you can't) rather than personalise it.
Hooliganism is not as rampant as you claim in NI football however I don't see how this is relevant to the GAA. I have been to Glens v Blues games btw albeit not in the Setanta Cup.
Sam Maguire, close friend of Michael Collins, was head of the IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood - main instigators of the 1916 rebellion) in London. Historian Tom Garvin mentions in his book 'Nationalist Revolutionaries in Ireland' that at one point (I am guessing here - I don't have the book handy - probably the 1918-1921 period) approximately half the committee members of GAA clubs were also members of the Irish Volunteers (IRA).
I think it's been mentioned somewhere here before that only two Protestants have ever won All-Ireland medals? With so many clubs and GAA grounds called after either saints, Archbishops or physical force Irish nationalists, I think we can safely say that the GAA holds little appeal to a certain section of the community.
to be fair less than 3% of the population are protestant, there's more actual polish in the country than there are people of that religion so it's a small number base you're dealing with in the first place.
But I'd have said the country has gone long past religion being a factor in anything, only the older generation care about stuff like that anymore. I for one don't know or care what (if any) religion my friends belong to. Why would it be any different as to what sport they get involved in as kids?
Great history lesson :rolleyes:, having nothing whatsoever to do with the GAA of today nor is this news to anyone I'd imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Straightstory
Lansdowne Road was named after a British thug but it doesn’t lessen the appeal of watching Ireland play in Lansdowne!
Sure is a ridiculous argument made by some that because Protestants have no interest in playing GAA that the GAA is sectarian!
There is absolutely NO CURRENT basis to support claims that religion is a barrier to being a GAA member. INDEED, JUST TO AID YOUR ACCOUNT OF HISTORY: SAM MAGUIRE WAS A PROTESTANT
Who cares about a midweek friendly when there are meaningful games on opposite it, etc? Ireland was almost unwatchable with their starters in on a saturday in a key game so it left a bad taste in people's mouth.
Facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
Show me one fact that supports your statement that this is GAA policy.
Read my post carefully.
You claimed it was GAA policy, I refuted this absolutely. There is no mention of this being GAA policy anywhere at anytime in the 30 years.
I seriously doubt that you have a clue about constitution, congress, motions and what is clearly defined as GAA Policy.
As for Kevin Myers, he was the source years ago you referred to for this particular gem, you have been posting the exact same self righteous tiresome nonsense about the GAA for years in any thread that you have a slight chance to slip into.
Kevin Myers did refer to it circa 2003 but his article was never refuted either.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Buy an online Irish Times subscription and read back over the time and the early 1980s. The motion and amendement are covered extensively and then in the letters pages for many years afterwards by Tom Woulfe of the GAA Civil Service Club who seemed to be a lone voice in the GAA against this.
Are you disputing that GAA Rule 7 was amended at the 1979 congress on March 26th 1979 to make the association "non party political" rather than "non political"?
Are you disputing the motion "unequivocally to support the struggle for national liberation" was passed at the 1979 GAA Congress?
Are you disputing that the amendment to qualify this support for the "unarmed struggle" was overwhelming defeated at the 1980 Congress?
The Gardai held protest marches at the time in Bundoran and Dublin.
The fact that you have resorted to personal abuse shows that you have clearly lost the argument.
These are facts. This is GAA policy. Abusing the messenger is not refuting the argument.
You may not like it being exposed although it would be nice to hear you condemn it as being wrong.
Cop on to yourself, there is no personal abuse. I take on the post not the poster.Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
You are stuck with a belief which has become a dogma.
You have not produced one teeny weeny fact to support your claim that the motion became GAA policy.
I have not denied an ambiguous motion was passed.
You do not have a clue what defines policy in general or what defines GAA policy.
A motion passed is an opinion, at given congress, at a given time and nothing more.
Policy is a plan of action to implement goals or procedures common to an organisation..
So you accept the motion WAS passed. We are getting somewhere. Do you accept the amendment was also roundly defeated in 1980.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Now the ambiguous paert. Perhaps you can give me a different definition as to what was meant by this motion other than endorsing the IRA.
Since then there were subsequent motions passed in support of IRA Hunger Strikers.
Perhaps there is a higher level of decision making in the GAA rather than Congress that I'm not aware of.
GAA clubs cups and grounds were named after IRA members.
GAA President Nicky Brennan took a sunday out in late July 2006 to open Kevin Lynch GAA ground which involved him receiving a paramilitary parade while on a platform wearing his chain of office. Late July is of course normally a quiet time in the GAA season and it's not like he could have had any matches to go to. :(
Now before you go through 50 posts denying the above why do a bit of googling. Check out Kevin Lynch GAA club, Sands McSwiney, kevin lynch GAA ground, campell lochrie park, louis leonard memorial park etc etc etc etc
These are real clubs, real grounds and real cups named after real terrorists.
Perhaps you might first of all CONDEMN the IRA and what they did or is that the real problem here.
Your post has descended to emotionally charged fanatic political babble which has no place on a discussion board.
You still have not a clue what defines policy or what defines GAA policy.
A motion is not policy, a motion could be passed at congress condemning the Government for cutbacks in funding. It has no impact on policy.
Nothing you have offered is, even in the remotest way, evidence of a motion passed at congress becoming GAA policy.
So motions to GAA Congress have no impact on policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The GAA claim to be a democratic organisation and that even the smallest club can propose a motion to congress. So if a GAA club lets say proposes that a goal now be worth 4 points. It goes all the way to Congress and gets passed then it actually means nothing. I wonder why all those clubs spend so much time proposing motions and sending delegates to GAA Congress.
Why bother with Congress then and claim it is the highest decision making body of the organisation?
Unless of course there is the faintest possibility that you are totally wrong but then of course that isn't possible is it?