Britain wants Legal arm of GAA
disbanded
 By GRAHAM
CLIFFORD
The London county board will table a motion at this month’s annual
GAA congress to disband the Disputes Resolution Authority (DRA). The body
set up to help avoid costly and embarrassing High Court cases has failed
in many people’s eyes to clean-up the GAA.
Now London with the backing of other British boards want it binned though
they concede the motion is unlikely to be passed. Chairman of the London
County Board Larry O’Leary said: “The DRA has become involved
in issues outside its remit. We acknowledge the importance of an authority
to help resolve problems within the GAA but it needs to be at least streamlined
so the cases which come before it are totally necessary.
“We believe we will have the backing of the other British boards
at congress but one of the main purposes of our motion is to highlight
the inadequacies of the DRA at present.”
Critics say the floodgates have opened since the setting up of the DRA
— with disputes associated with bans imposed by County boards, fixture
changes and player transfers resulting in costly and drawn-out legal proceedings.
Once a claim is brought by a club or person against a board, individual
or club, they have to represent themselves, there is no option, so even
if the club is innocent they incur costs in defending the claim.
London have been taken to the DRA twice and have settled with no order
regarding costs. They didn’t have to pay legal fees but the Provincial
Council of Britain had to pay £6,000 in defending the claims against
them.
A further case may be on the cards against the board as the newly founded
Fulham Irish club say they may take legal proceedings over the issue of
inter-club transfers in London.
A recent ruling in Warwickshire has highlighted the DRA’s failings.
Three individuals who were involved in an incident where a referee was
assaulted at the end of a club match challenged the length of their suspensions
via the DRA. The Authority ruled the individuals in question had to pay
combined costs of £4,000 and serve two years probation sentences
while the Warwickshire board also incurred costs. Legal experts argue
such a case should never have been accepted by the DRA.
|
