The history of GAA sticking plasters is not encouraging. Remedies dreamed up or kept in place in order to palliate some necessary reform have a habit of becoming as troublesome as the original problem whose resolution they were intended to facilitate.

Last week there was a world of poor publicity about how Dromard, a little club in Longford trying to make ends meet had been fined for allowing a commercial soccer school to use its facilities last August. And, ran the subtext, everyone at it.

This triggered the usual colourful outpourings about how those in Croke Park ("suits") are happy enough to rent out their own stadium ("line their own pockets") to the likes of Bruce Springsteen while small local clubs couldn't even put on something for children in the community. ("Joke!")

It might not be generally known but the whole rule on the use of association property is not hewn into the rock of GAA history but goes back to the comparatively recent days of the 1970s.

After a few goes at dismantling the old ban on foreign games throughout the 1960s, the reformers finally had their day at the 1971 annual congress in Belfast

What happened next didn't appear to be problematic. Then president, Pat Fanning, a proponent of the deleted rules, addressed congress and earned (curiously enormous) kudos for his acceptance of the democratic will. He also used the opportunity to retrench as best he could and remind delegates that although they could now attend soccer, rugby, hockey and cricket matches, this did not reduce the obligation to give first allegiance to the GAA.

Newspaper report

The report in this newspaper read: “At the suggestion of the President the delegates agreed unanimously to adopt two motions.

“The first of these, sponsored by Fermanagh, advocates a clearly defined membership of the GAA, registering of clubs, protection for the goods and chattels of the organisation and strict adherence to amateur status.”

“The other, sponsored by Derry, proposed a re-assertion of loyalty to the national games, language, dances and music of the country; support for Irish industry, dedication to the ideal of full nationhood, the utilisation of membership and resources only for GAA purposes and strict definition of membership of the association.”

So the agenda was set for further years of agitation, as the use of GAA property was argued about and debated until the blanket restriction finally bit the dust at the 2005 congress with the decision to open Croke Park to other sports, having a had a near-death experience four years previously.

It is worth remembering that advocates of the relaxation of Rule 42 (as it then was) made sure that their arguments encompassed only Croke Park. This was because at the time it was felt that delegates wouldn’t vote for full relaxation of the rule and that it was best to restrict availability to other sports to just the GAA’s main stadium.

If that was the view of clubs at the time – in both 2001 and ’05 – it would be interesting to know the extent to which this remains the case. Like the GAA with Croke Park, clubs around the country have invested in facilities and would like to be able to earn some return on them.

St Joseph's club in Miltown Malbay has long been a warrior on this topic and once again brings a motion to congress designed to open up all county grounds. A year ago a similar proposal from the same club was defeated 38-62 after an intervention from director general Páraic Duffy, pointing out that acceptance of this would go far beyond what had been envisaged in the previous relaxation of the rule.

For Dromard to be able to welcome Jamie Carragher’s summer school would require an even broader motion, essentially one to abolish the relevant rule, 5.1 (b) - as opposed to allowing county grounds be part of the derogation.

It is nearly 15 years now since the debate to open Croke Park narrowly failed. Many of the arguments in favour came from delegates who spoke about how they had used the facilities of other sports clubs and how it was embarrassing that the GAA should continue to maintain a blanket ban on reciprocation.

The blanket ban was folded away and rugby and soccer allowed to be staged in Croke Park. The Official Guide now boasts a couple of lines further relaxing Rule 5 to allow the Rugby World Cup in 2023 play matches in other GAA venues should the IRFU bid be successful – following a motion passed by the 2013 congress.

Rents

Four years of decent rents brought in around €37 million for the GAA during the rugby and soccer years between 2007 and 2010. Should the RWC land here in seven years, there will have been a dividend for other GAA venues in terms of public funding for improvements.

Rule 5 provides that GAA property should only be used for Gaelic games “or for Field Games other than those sanctioned by Central Council,” 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”.

The letting of Croke Park and the prospective engagement with RWC 2023 (or 2027) have established that earning revenue for the GAA cannot be considered in conflict with the aims and objects of the association. Refusal to allow clubs do something similar may be permissible within the current rules but why should the same rulebook allow certain units – but not others – to do something?

Never mind the PR firestorm. What is the justification?

smoran@irishtimes.com