On GAA: Maybe in the light of a less-than-spectacular motions list for next month's congress, people are starting to miss the controversies of last year and the Rule 42 (as Rule 44 then was) debate in particular, writes Seán Moran.

It's hard to explain otherwise the desire of so many to emulate the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, gamely fighting on and taunting his opponent in combat, as King Arthur serially chops off all of the knight's limbs with a broadsword.

The sporadic noises about whether Croke Park can host rugby and soccer internationals in the absence of Lansdowne Road getting planning permission for its redevelopment is of necessity a matter of interpretation.

Yet, it has largely been a rerun of the debate of 12 months ago between those who never wanted Croke Park opened in the first place and those who would have been happy to see it made available with far less restrictive qualifications than were adopted in Rule 44.

When such confusion reigns it's always useful to have an even-handed perspective. GAA director general Liam Mulvihill generally stays clear of controversy. You might as well search the works of Hunter S Thompson for temperance counsel as try and find a rash comment in one of Mulvihill's annual reports.

This year's report contains a methodical exposition of the situation as the director general sees it. "The democratic decision taken by that Congress was given effect by Central Council in December 2005," he says in the report.

"By that time, the IRFU and the FAI had applied for use of Croke Park in 2007 on the basis that planning permission for the redevelopment would be lodged in January 2006 and that Lansdowne Road would require to be closed in 2007 due to the redevelopment process.

"Because the IRFU and FAI had to confirm 2007 venues with their respective International Boards in early 2006, negotiations with the two organisations began immediately and were satisfactorily completed by mid-January. This provided for two competitive rugby internationals and three European soccer internationals to be played in Croke Park in 2007."

Focus since then has centred on the wording of the Sligo motion that ultimately became Rule 44, which reads: "Central Council shall have the power to authorise the use of Croke Park for games, other than those controlled by the association, during a temporary period when Lansdowne Road football ground is closed for the proposed redevelopment."

As soon as the coming autumn rugby internationals are over, Lansdowne Road will be closed for the proposed redevelopment.

The main argument by those hoping to derail the fixtures agreed for next year is how can a redevelopment take place without planning permission.

Whereas advocates of this position concede that the strict wording of the rule doesn't really support their case, they argue that the recent rush to lease Croke Park has been contrary to the spirit of what was debated and accepted at congress nearly a year ago.

A more fanciful contention is that those raising the issue are simply trying to ensure that the wishes of delegates at that congress are respected. This is a commendable viewpoint, albeit confusing when voiced by members of the Cork GAA, which last year refused to take into account the views of its own clubs on the matter.

But is it an accurate reflection of the congress debate? Not really. Twenty-five delegates spoke on the issue and at no time did the question of planning permission arise. The closest mention came from Donal McCormack of Down, who queried why the matter was being discussed at that stage, when the redevelopment was so distant.

"We can come back next year. We should be taking this decision once only, when it requires to be taken."

But McCormack was opposing the motions and so doesn't represent a swing vote or a duped supporter and his major problem with the case for change was entirely unrelated. "The biggest problem I have is in handing over power to Central Council, which would erode the powers of congress."

A Meath delegate also queried what the precise period of temporary letting would be and whether, as a temporary provision, the issue would be subject to the weighted two-thirds vote or a simple majority.

Now, to be fair to those who opposed, they weren't specifically aware of which motion was going to be put to the floor so their arguments were general, but of the seven motions under discussion, the majority referred to temporary availability. Eventually, the Sligo motion was left to go forward.

GAA president Seán Kelly was scrupulous in announcing that, although the measure was a temporary one, a two-thirds majority would be required - even though such a ruling would work against his own views. Nonetheless, it was successful, 227-97.

If there were reservations about the interpretation of the new rule they didn't surface until December when the move was made to secure the go-ahead to open negotiations with the FAI and IRFU.

The GAA's Management Committee split down the middle on the proposal before coming around on a revote and that afternoon, meeting in camera, Central Council endorsed the proposal overwhelmingly, between 85 and 90 per cent in favour.

Concerns about the question of planning permission were raised by Ulster chair Michael Greenan and Cork delegate Bob Honohan - both of whom had been vigorous opponents of change at last April's congress.

The notion that the current interpretation constitutes a violation of members' rights would have been greatly strengthened had anyone who spoke in favour of change 12 months ago raised similar objections.

Both Greenan and Honohan maintain that they were given assurances by Kelly at last month's Central Council meeting in relation to the necessity of securing planning permission before staging the internationals. Kelly denies this.

In any event, the horse has bolted. Given the deadlines for organising internationals, the deal between the GAA and the other associations had to be concluded by the end of January.

What the GAA accepted as bona fide projections suggested that the planning process would take a year and arrangements were made for next year only.

It may have been thought by some within the GAA that these lettings could wait for confirmation until a few weeks before the rugby and soccer internationals were due to be played but that's hardly a reasonable interpretation.

The caution with which the GAA has progressed on this matter is reflected by a triple lock.

In Mulvihill's words: "Any decision in regard to the period post 2007 will be contingent on Lansdowne Road still being closed due to the redevelopment process and it being clear that the process is still 'alive '. It will also be subject to a Central Council review."

Thirdly, if the proposed redevelopment is refused planning permission the matter will have to go back to Congress.

What's the problem?