THE CENTRAL Competitions Control Committee meets today to consider one the most contentious items ever to appear on one of its agenda. The directive from the Central Appeals Committee that CCCC grants Seán Johnston his transfer from Cavan to Kildare has placed the two bodies – both national committees of Central Council – at odds with each other.
Johnston’s transfer was turned down by the CCCC last month on two grounds: firstly that the committee wasn’t satisfied the player’s permanent residence had changed to Kildare (Rule 6.9) and secondly that the proposed move violated the community ethos of the GAA and the debt of allegiance owed by members to their local clubs (Rule 6.1).
The player’s appeal was granted because the CAC deemed that neither the player’s original club Cavan Gaels nor the Cavan county committee had lodged an objection to the move within the stipulated period of 10 days (Rule 6.10).
In other words, the appeals body believes the procedural requirement in 6.10 outranks the considerations in 6.9 and 6.1.
The CCCC feel, however, their finding that permanent residence hadn’t been established is the more fundamental consideration and that the ethos-based rule has already been acknowledged by the GAA’s independent arbitration body, the Disputes Resolution Authority, in other cases.
The committee feel that if the procedural argument based on 6.10 were to be vindicated it would mean the CCCC had no role in supervising transfers once nobody objected – and that this runs counter to the insistence in 6.9 that such application shall not be granted unless the player is in permanent residence in the new county . . .
The old rule book, which governs this case, makes no explicit reference to resolving any possible conflict between the rules, especially 6.9 and 6.10.
Frustratingly for the CCCC, the updated rule book – as amended by April’s annual congress – does by making the procedural clause clearly subordinate to the residence requirement.
The question of what happens next will occupy today’s meeting. It would appear there are three options before the committee: allow the transfer without further ado, as directed by the CAC; refer the matter to the DRA for final adjudication; or allow the transfer but also ask the arbitration body for guidance on the issues raised.
Realistically, the third option looks unlikely, as the new rules mean this conflict wouldn’t arise in a future case and so there would be little point in asking for an adjudication on the matter.
Simplest of all would be option one, to comply with the CAC directive and allow the transfer without any further delay.
There is also an argument that the applicant has been put through the wringer enough at this stage.
Like May Stevenson, who in 1928 just wanted some ginger beer but found a decomposing snail floating in it and went on to play an unwittingly pioneering role in modern negligence law, Johnston’s request has turned into a forum for considering the wider issues of local loyalties at the heart of the GAA’s formation.
Nonetheless the CCCC may well feel that they can’t in conscience allow a transfer, which is deemed to be in clear breach of rules 6.9 and 6.1, and decide instead to seek clarification, this time from the DRA.
Such a move would inevitably create an unprecedented friction between two Croke Park committees and would be the first time one has tried to go over the head of another – as opposed to a player or unit taking that decision.
