However, he sees no reason why they would be moved by the CPA’s call to withdraw it from consideration at next month’s Congress.

Speaking at the launch of his annual report in Croke Park earlier, Duffy said the proposals weren’t his but the result of management committee deciding that his recommendations should form a report.

He took exception to the CPA's request for him to postpone the motion when at the same time CPA chairman Micheál Briody said “this needs sorted now”.

CPA cannot support Duffy fixtures proposal.
Register now at https://t.co/sfSbiAs6Kq to #FixTheFixtures https://t.co/Gd9iT32wxe

— ClubPlayersAssoc (@ClubPlayerAssoc) January 24, 2017

“They asked if the GAA fix the fixtures issue for all players, which I thought is what we’re trying to do in terms of the motions going to Congress. To say that if the proposals are passed it will be 2019 at the earliest and it needs sorting now? If you want to attempt to sort it now then why would you park it? The two things appear contradictory.

“If Central Council or Coiste Bainisti (management committee) were to park it, which they won’t, then the issue wouldn’t be addressed at all this year.”

Duffy met members of the CPA executive for a third time last Thursday having done so with the approval of GAA president Aogán Ó Fearghail. He also rubbished the CPA's point that "the nature of Congress" may impede the motion for them to be formally recognised by the GAA - "the motions will be on the agenda and discussed by Congress. I'm not too sure what they seem to be at there."

Similar to the CPA’s expression, concerns have been raised in recent weeks by the likes of Munster secretary Simon Moroney and Clare coach Dónal Óg Cusack about the impact Duffy’s new SFC structure would have on hurling in light of the eight additional “round robin” matches and bringing forward the hurling championship

In his annual report, he attempted to address those worries: “It is very important to emphasise the point that the aim of the Alternative Fixtures Schedule (prepared as an Appendix to the football championship proposal) was simply to demonstrate, for purposes of illustration, one way in which the All-Ireland senior championships can be completed by the end of August so as to achieve a more condensed inter-county programme.

“The motion of the timing of the All-Ireland finals that will go before Congress will ask that both All-Ireland senior finals be played on or before the last Sunday in August, on a date determined by Central Council. It does not specify a particular Sunday, nor the order in which the finals would be played.

“There is absolutely no reason, therefore, why Central Council could not decide to play the hurling final after the football final if it was concerned that there would be too few major hurling games in July or August.

“I would be very concerned if I believed that the football proposal might damage the jewels in the crown that are the provincial and All-Ireland hurling championships. But I honestly do not believe that the concern is justified. It is hard to think of a reason why bringing forward the hurling – and football – championships should diminish interest in the hurling championship.”

Duffy also targeted criticism of the football format concerning developing counties: “The argument that the new format makes it more difficult for ‘weaker’ counties to reach the last eight is wrong. The pathway to that stage is unchanged, except in the wholly positive sense that these counties would be favoured by their being granted home-venue advantage in rounds one, two and three of the qualifiers.

“It is worth reflecting on a statistic that was provided at the meeting of the Ard Chomhairle that considered the proposal: since the All-Ireland qualifiers were introduced, 23 different counties have qualified for the last eight of the All-Ireland football championship. There is no ceiling on what any county can achieve.”

Duffy also highlighted the point that his proposal doesn’t eliminate replays entirely – they would remain in place for provincial and All-Ireland finals. He added: “If we leave the football championship unchanged, we are effectively burying our heads in the sand: the problem of falling appeal will remain, with no obvious alternative that is likely to achieve a consensus, while the unfairness to club players will again have been ignored. The task of Congress is to decide what is best for the GAA, but it must done so in the clear understanding that the Association needs an exciting football championship.”

Duffy expressed his opposition to calls for video evidence to be used in the live administration of matches – “it disrupts the flow of the game”, while he again questioned the continuation of the Interprovincial competitions – “many of our top players declared themselves unavailable and few spectators turn up”.

He also highlighted issues with counties’ grading of clubs – “Everybody accepts that the best team in each county, by virtue of being the county senior championship winners, represent the county in the senior provincial championship. At intermediate and junior levels, however, there is a wide disparity in the determination of what constitutes an intermediate or junior club.

“The number of senior clubs can vary from 10 (or lower) to 30 (or higher). Where there are 10 senior teams in a county, the intermediate winners, or the 11th-ranked club, will represent the county in the provincial intermediate championship. But where there are 30 senior teams, the intermediate winners representing the county in the provincial intermediate competition will be the 31st ranked club. Clearly, that gap will be similarly reflected in the junior provincial championship. It is, therefore, more likely that a county will be successful in the intermediate and junior grades if it has a small number of senior teams.”