Removal of Rule 42: This was a good weekend for the GAA. Even objectively. For all the hopes that the issue of Rule 42 could be sorted out once and for all, either yea or nay, the only way that it could realistically be resolved was the removal of the provision, even on the temporary basis agreed on Saturday.
This wasn't because there were external forces and media conspiracies, or because advocates of change were interested only in self-aggrandisement. The simple truth is that the membership wanted the rule relaxed, and because of the steep requirements of the weighted majority of two-thirds, it was always going to take a few attempts before change would come. But come it would.
"Democracy is a wonderful thing," said Clare's Noel Walsh, a veteran campaigner for repeal, to anyone and everyone after the historic session had concluded. And it was democracy that won out. Clubs and members flexed their muscles - not always successfully, but in sufficient numbers to bring about change.
The final margin of 227-97 was handsome (although 12 switched votes and it was gone), but you could have named your price on the likelihood of such an outcome both at 2.15pm when the debate started or an hour-and-a-half later when it concluded.
Straws in the wind were discouraging. There was speculation that one county would support only Wicklow's motion for change, throwing projections into doubt as the seven counties who had listed proposals were likely to go with Sligo's, the first on the clár.
A recommendation for a secret ballot was accepted by 165-153, triggering fears that there would be leakage among those mandated for change. This speculation wasn't unduly mean-minded; four years previously a number of delegates openly broke their mandates and tipped the decision against opening Croke Park.
In the end, though, this was all for the best. The result was four-square consistent with all mandates being observed, although the opposition case doesn't appear to have picked up any of the small floating vote.
The procedure of the paper vote - each county's total number of ballots handed to the delegation head - meant that there was in fact some element of supervision. In fact, it was rumoured afterwards that the one spoiled vote had been the result of a county chair deliberating nullifying a ballot that had broken mandate (whether in favour or against change was unspecified).
But when Kieran McDermott proposed Sligo's motion the mood in the hall among the reformers was downbeat. McDermott's low-key address (and his quiet, forensic rebuttal of opposing arguments when replying to the debate) set the tone for his side's approach.
"We're not doing ourselves any favours if we don't accept this. It won't weaken our rival sports, because soccer and rugby will be played in any event. There won't be huge rental out of this, but any rental that comes our way will be welcome."
Immediately came a string of opposing speeches. Former president Con Murphy questioned the motion fundamentally. "The association is being put out of business if we go ahead with this. We are supporting the creation of a new association that caters for everything and stands for nothing."
It rapidly became apparent that this would be a dialogue of the deaf, each side unpersuadable to the other's point of view. This was particularly apparent in the contributions of older delegates and those from the north.
Considered dispassionately, their views are understandable. The GAA was founded as an expression of nationality at a time when that identity defined itself most clearly in not being British and not playing games that were at that time associated with colonialism. Much the same influences have been powerful in the six cross-Border Ulster counties.
PS Ó Riain, the veteran Limerick delegate, spoke vigorously against the motion. His life-span is separated from GAA founder Michael Cusack's by less than a decade. It's not surprising that someone of his generation would find the more ecumenical mood of the present inexplicable.
Not all opposition is confined to the older members and those in Ulster, but among the other demographics opposition to change is strictly a minority view.
GAA president Seán Kelly said afterwards that he was mindful of the need to reconcile those who regarded the weekend's vote as something that damaged the very essence of the association.
"I'd be willing to do anything to address that, but people are also realistic and committed. You don't give your life to the association and then fall out with it over an issue that's been well debated and passed by an overwhelming majority."
As the debate wore on, the opposition became more abrasive. Ulster chair Michael Greenan threw a thinly-veiled jibe at Kelly, insinuating that he had indulged in a "media circus".
In retrospect, the jaggedness of some of the opposition rhetoric may well have firmed up the proponents of change, but realistically decisions had already been made.
Certainly the arguments hadn't changed much in four years. Brian McEvoy of Down suggested that the move was in contravention of Rule 2 because soccer is a partitionist game. He was evidently unaware of the irony that the very venue, Croke Park, does substantial business - conferences, seminars and launches - with a Government every bit as much a creature of partition as the soccer team.
Wexford's Seán Quirke cut to a more widely held position. Describing how rugby international Gordon D'Arcy is an avid follower of Wexford's football and hurling fortunes, Quirke said: "I'd be a proud man if he wore an Irish jersey on the field at Croke Park".
Where does the outcome leave the GAA? With a monkey off its back. The issue of Croke Park being used will continue to crackle, but the ball will be in the court of the FAI and IRFU. Negotiating a price will be the stuff of normal commerce, but if matches go abroad it won't be because the GAA rule book decreed it.
Seán Kelly reflected in the aftermath that the vote would probably be seen as more important to the public at large than to his membership.
"The vote on Rule 42 will be seen by those outside the association as the most important decision taken. Within, there might be different views on it, but certainly it is historic. It is also very generous and reflects confidence and our desire to be good neighbours and to help out people when they're in need - even though they may be our keenest rivals in terms of competition. I think history will judge us well for it."
And for himself, a staunch advocate of this change long before he ever ran for high office, was it personally gratifying?
"Obviously when you take a position it's nice to see it coming to pass. I stuck my neck out a few times - some people would say unwisely - but I've been consistent. But this wasn't about me. In essence, the membership spoke and the vote reflected what people were thinking around the country."
