National Forum

Allianz protest

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post


I also listened to the indo podcast with Colm O'Rourke whom I always enjoy listening to his analysis of games and find him very knowledgeable and even keeled.
However even though I understand the want to remove Allianz as a sponsor and I understand the appropriately 800k in sponsorship may be replaced (in my opinion pretty easily maybe not) but it's the insurance carrier side for most GAA grounds & associated facilities thats going to be difficult to replace.
Remove this insurance carrier without having a carrier in place that has the capability and capacity, who does not have ties to Israeli war bonds will be a difficult task, and if a carrier is found they may or may not want the contracts, most likely the premiums would increase.
So the choices in theory may seem simple , in fact are not easy

1. Form a committee to research an insurance company that does not have ties to Israel and engage to hopefully get to contract. This would probably take approximately 18-24 months. My recommendation to head the committee would be Colm O'Rourke or Peter Canavan.

2. Remove Allianz and most clubs in the country would cease to play games as the clubs would not take on the liability of a serious injury and having a lawsuit.

nails (Galway) - Posts: 33 - 06/03/2026 02:10:25    2660224

Link

Replying To Viking66:  "Isn't there a lot to be said for just being plain old fashioned tolerant of people who have different beliefs in life to yourself, or are just different to yourself?
And for the different people, or those who have those different beliefs, not to ram them down everyone else's throats?"
Yes and to make room for an open discussion at Congress or a different forum for a topic that is clearly causing division and needs addressing to see if the views of the ethics committee align with the majority view.

sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 1101 - 06/03/2026 08:18:03    2660230

Link

Replying To Viking66:  "Isn't there a lot to be said for just being plain old fashioned tolerant of people who have different beliefs in life to yourself, or are just different to yourself?
And for the different people, or those who have those different beliefs, not to ram them down everyone else's throats?"
People who are 'tolerant' don't break into a meeting injuring security staff in the name of 'solidarity'. These clowns deserve every bit of the shouting and roaring they get... that's all 'the wokies' know, a term that seems to triggers them.

Square_B (Leitrim) - Posts: 1864 - 06/03/2026 09:29:48    2660240

Link

Replying To peiledoir20:  "Won't someone please think of the Leitrim children."
Pathetic.

Square_B (Leitrim) - Posts: 1864 - 06/03/2026 09:31:25    2660243

Link

Replying To nails:  "I also listened to the indo podcast with Colm O'Rourke whom I always enjoy listening to his analysis of games and find him very knowledgeable and even keeled.
However even though I understand the want to remove Allianz as a sponsor and I understand the appropriately 800k in sponsorship may be replaced (in my opinion pretty easily maybe not) but it's the insurance carrier side for most GAA grounds & associated facilities thats going to be difficult to replace.
Remove this insurance carrier without having a carrier in place that has the capability and capacity, who does not have ties to Israeli war bonds will be a difficult task, and if a carrier is found they may or may not want the contracts, most likely the premiums would increase.
So the choices in theory may seem simple , in fact are not easy

1. Form a committee to research an insurance company that does not have ties to Israel and engage to hopefully get to contract. This would probably take approximately 18-24 months. My recommendation to head the committee would be Colm O'Rourke or Peter Canavan.

2. Remove Allianz and most clubs in the country would cease to play games as the clubs would not take on the liability of a serious injury and having a lawsuit."
That's a good post and it emphasises the insurance end of things, which I think is being overlooked far too often, but which remains crucial.

Allianz provides property & general liability insurance to every GAA club in the land, at very favourable terms. If ties between Allianz & the GAA were cut, then every single club would likely to have find thousands of euro extra for insurance each year. Money that could be better spent on coaching and teams and facilities, etc.

You rightly point out that finding an alternative insurer to provide such a scheme would be a long process. And if clubs had to go to the open market instead, they'd be faced with even bigger insurance premiums.

By the way, I like the idea of inviting O'Rourke and Canavan to head up a task force to find a different insurer. :)

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 3384 - 06/03/2026 09:48:03    2660246

Link

Anyway, here's a thought.....

People like O'Rourke and Canavan and all the other protestors last week should actually be pressing the GAA to demand more sponsorship money from Allianz.

Because if they're giving more money to the GAA, they can't be tying that money up in things linked to Israel.....

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 3384 - 06/03/2026 09:50:36    2660247

Link

Replying To sligo joe:  "Yes and to make room for an open discussion at Congress or a different forum for a topic that is clearly causing division and needs addressing to see if the views of the ethics committee align with the majority view."
There was room made at Congress on Friday evening for a discussion on the matter and no one spoke. None of the county board delegates from any county spoke on the matter.

tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1617 - 06/03/2026 10:19:14    2660253

Link

Replying To sligo joe:  "Yes and to make room for an open discussion at Congress or a different forum for a topic that is clearly causing division and needs addressing to see if the views of the ethics committee align with the majority view."
The Ethics Committee pointed out, or rather implied, that if the GAA was to apply standards related to issues of 'justice' that could involved rights related to all sorts of issues then they would be greatly restricted as would all units in taking sponsorship.

Even at a basic level of trade union membership I can think of a fair few 'union busters' whose names are on jerseys.

Besides, Allianz have ceased any connection via the company with Israeli links to Gaza? So it is it punishment at this stage?

BarneyGrant (Dublin) - Posts: 4045 - 06/03/2026 10:20:31    2660254

Link

Replying To BarneyGrant:  "The Ethics Committee pointed out, or rather implied, that if the GAA was to apply standards related to issues of 'justice' that could involved rights related to all sorts of issues then they would be greatly restricted as would all units in taking sponsorship.

Even at a basic level of trade union membership I can think of a fair few 'union busters' whose names are on jerseys.

Besides, Allianz have ceased any connection via the company with Israeli links to Gaza? So it is it punishment at this stage?"
Of course, it's punishment. 95% of the civilian deaths in Gaza came before January 2025, when the Biden/Harris government funded the campaign against Hamas. If you point out facts here, you are called names. I am totally against war.
Germany, France, Italy, the UK, etc., do not acknowledge any genocide either.
How do you find insurance in the interdependent marketplace that does not have ties to bad regimes?

maroondiesel (Mayo) - Posts: 1262 - 06/03/2026 10:56:27    2660261

Link

Replying To BarneyGrant:  "The Ethics Committee pointed out, or rather implied, that if the GAA was to apply standards related to issues of 'justice' that could involved rights related to all sorts of issues then they would be greatly restricted as would all units in taking sponsorship.

Even at a basic level of trade union membership I can think of a fair few 'union busters' whose names are on jerseys.

Besides, Allianz have ceased any connection via the company with Israeli links to Gaza? So it is it punishment at this stage?"
My point was and is that an association that openly professes it's democratic values and the weight it puts on it's members' views maybe should find a way, inside or outside congress to permit the issue to be discussed and not just close down discussion by saying "the ethics committee has decided". Personally I don't think a dictat from an ethics committee or indeed any other advice from any committee should just hold sway without debate. This might appear to be "strong leadership" but in the long run absence of discussion weakens the association.

sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 1101 - 06/03/2026 12:55:40    2660295

Link

Replying To sligo joe:  "My point was and is that an association that openly professes it's democratic values and the weight it puts on it's members' views maybe should find a way, inside or outside congress to permit the issue to be discussed and not just close down discussion by saying "the ethics committee has decided". Personally I don't think a dictat from an ethics committee or indeed any other advice from any committee should just hold sway without debate. This might appear to be "strong leadership" but in the long run absence of discussion weakens the association."
Was it 9 County Boards passed motions to drop Allianz as sponsors?
They deserved a discussion at Congress at tge very least.

Seanfan (Roscommon) - Posts: 405 - 06/03/2026 14:15:07    2660313

Link

Replying To sligo joe:  "My point was and is that an association that openly professes it's democratic values and the weight it puts on it's members' views maybe should find a way, inside or outside congress to permit the issue to be discussed and not just close down discussion by saying "the ethics committee has decided". Personally I don't think a dictat from an ethics committee or indeed any other advice from any committee should just hold sway without debate. This might appear to be "strong leadership" but in the long run absence of discussion weakens the association."
If you want something discussing at Convention then get your club ro put in a motion. Same as for everyone else.

Viking66 (Wexford) - Posts: 18678 - 06/03/2026 14:25:57    2660316

Link

Replying To sligo joe:  "My point was and is that an association that openly professes it's democratic values and the weight it puts on it's members' views maybe should find a way, inside or outside congress to permit the issue to be discussed and not just close down discussion by saying "the ethics committee has decided". Personally I don't think a dictat from an ethics committee or indeed any other advice from any committee should just hold sway without debate. This might appear to be "strong leadership" but in the long run absence of discussion weakens the association."
But there was a way that would have allowed that discussion to happen. And a way still exists too.

Concern over the Allianz sponsorship was first voiced as far back as last August. That was plenty of time for any member who feels strongly about it to submit a motion for Congress, calling for a new rule on how sponsorships are agreed or maintained, or under what circumstances they can be dropped.

And as is stands, sponsorships are governed by Code rather than by Rule. Central Council can amend Codes of its own volition. That means any member who seriously, genuinely, wants to see the Allianz deal ended can lobby their own County Board to mandate their own delegate to raise it at Central Council, and seek change there.

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 3384 - 06/03/2026 14:53:41    2660318

Link

Replying To Seanfan:  "Was it 9 County Boards passed motions to drop Allianz as sponsors?
They deserved a discussion at Congress at tge very least."
The opportunity for delegates to discuss the matter at congress on Friday night was raised. Nobody in the room asked for the microphone!!

tearintom (Wexford) - Posts: 1617 - 06/03/2026 15:27:15    2660324

Link

Replying To tearintom:  "The opportunity for delegates to discuss the matter at congress on Friday night was raised. Nobody in the room asked for the microphone!!"
Surely the fact that no delegate raised the matter raises more questions considering that 9 counties had originally proposed motions on the issue.

sligo joe (Dublin) - Posts: 1101 - 06/03/2026 16:27:17    2660331

Link

Replying To sligo joe:  "Surely the fact that no delegate raised the matter raises more questions considering that 9 counties had originally proposed motions on the issue."
With respect, I think you misunderstand what actually happened.

County Boards passed motions asking GAA to consider ending the deal with Allianz. These were motions for consideration when the powers-that-be were reviewing the findings of the Ethics Committee. Am sure those motions were noted and considered (at least briefly anyway, even if just to say "no, we'll go the other way") before the decision was made to stick with Allianz after all.

The motions weren't for Congress, and were never due to be discussed there.

The sequence of events does indeed raise some questions though, albeit about the counties themselves, rather than about GAA top brass trying to silence them.

If these counties felt strongly enough to pass those motions in the first place, then why not take the opportunity to speak at Congress when that opportunity was given to them?

Maybe they didn't feel that strongly after all?

Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 3384 - 06/03/2026 18:26:31    2660352

Link