http://www.srfcultras.net/index01.html
Check this out - saw story in Evening Herald today, has to be seen to be believed! Maybe when the Joy is closed it could be redeveloped to house Rovers?
at this point, the inmates of 'the joy' would like to point out that they have no association or links with shamrock rovers...
:D
I love the way that these "Ultras" still felt the need to either (a) edit the swear word for more sensitive readers or else (b) endorse an English brand of clothing.
I can't quite figure out which. Either way it's a fair establishment of their hardline credentials.
Ah soccer fans, so mature, so eloquent, so intelligent.
Why Zero O'Donoghue is bending over backwards to help out these guttersnipes, I'll never know!
::)
a shower of toerags -many of them have residence status in the joy.
I notice that the Ultras forum has gone private, so the general public can't view it.
Probably a wise move, since it was inhabited by the kind of low life that would embarrass any club, even Shamrock Rovers.
Now they can swap their bigoted and warped view of the world with each other, without the risk of it damaging their charm offensive to get a free stadium.
;D
i'm no law talkin guy but some of the stuff on there could close that place down.
surely non-gaa??
Where is DF anyway?
Well they were holding up a sign saying F**k Thomas Davis at a game, so it is GAA really.
Rovers, when in Milltown, had a daycent Dub supporter element to them. I moved to Milltown in 1990 or so just after Glenmalure Park closed and used to look in wistfully at the long grass and the stand (where some auld codger lived - you could see his tv aeriel on top of the stand). Rovers were the ManU of Irish soccer when I was a nipper. Gilesy, Ray Tracey et al. Now well in the past
They are now pretty much Ireland's Millwall. Only worse.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 04, 2007, 05:54:08 PM
I love the way that these "Ultras" still felt the need to either (a) edit the swear word for more sensitive readers or else (b) endorse an English brand of clothing.
I can't quite figure out which. Either way it's a fair establishment of their hardline credentials.
public order act, the gaurds would have pulled it down if there was a curse on it.
exactly what is the objection to this? this is the first public reaction from them in the two years TD have been stalling their stadium.
mountjoy? a bit of an cliched over reaction as usual gents?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 05, 2007, 01:38:44 AM
a bit of an cliched over reaction as usual gents?
"THOMAS DAVIS GAC, f**k OFF AND DIE!"
How should one react to this Roversfella?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 05, 2007, 01:38:44 AM
exactly what is the objection to this?
OK. I'm finally beginning to understand who I'm dealing with.
Dublinfella, you're some clown trying to defend that, you know that.
Easy to see why eircom league struggles to draw a crowd when that's the mentality of the few who do go.
It's a failed league that'll never relive the heyday it enjoyed decades ago. The premiership has seen to that.
I mean really, going professional on the back of and average crowd of less then 2k, you couldn't make it up.
I find that site very sinister. I know if I was a taxpayer I wouldnt be wanting any support for those guys. Call that sport or support. looks like Naziism to me.
ultras = hooligans
same thing just an Italian way of saying it so the they can feel sopfisticated
Quote'Our belief in our destiny is unwavering.'
Does that destiny include pitched battles outside Dalymount or whatever halting site Rovers are currently occupying after every game with Bohs??
Bunch of spanners.
Quote from: dubnut on April 05, 2007, 09:17:44 AM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 05, 2007, 01:38:44 AM
a bit of an cliched over reaction as usual gents?
"THOMAS DAVIS GAC, f**k OFF AND DIE!"
How should one react to this Roversfella?
so they arent entitled to react to a gaa club trying to get free use of their stadium? remember the 'last man standing' email? its ok for a gaa club to act like they are but a couple of fans react with a banner and the world ends? get real lads.
for the record i think the banner is childish and just the reaction TD want, but the contrived offence is hilarious
Quoteso they arent entitled to react to a gaa club trying to get free use of their stadium?
WUM. You cannot be taken seriously.
Childish.... thats just churlish!
Quote from: dublinfella on April 05, 2007, 02:15:39 PM
[
.... a gaa club trying to get free use of their stadium?
Shows the mentality of the begging homeless tramps - they think it's their :oeffin stadium !!!!!
Jasus lads ya couldnt make it up ;D
These so called fans must be the thickest most annoyng bunch of plikes that Ireland ever produced.
How can you have aby respect for soccer teams when they make banners like that?
Quote from: Orior on April 05, 2007, 09:50:27 PM
How can you have aby respect for soccer teams when they make banners like that?
whereas the chair of a GAA club stating he wants to kill a soccer club gets applauded here.
again, the hypocicy crippling the GAA strikes again.
the mistake that has been made is O'donahue has been back up against a wall and it has got personal and has now promised the gyspies come hell or high water and it would be a major loss of face now for TD to plaay in talllaght. If it had been kept on a professional level this wouls all have been over years ago
Quotewhereas the chair of a GAA club stating he wants to kill a soccer club gets applauded here
I must have missed that.
Quote from: rosnarun on April 06, 2007, 10:54:52 AM
the mistake that has been made is O'donahue has been back up against a wall and it has got personal and has now promised the gyspies come hell or high water and it would be a major loss of face now for TD to plaay in talllaght. If it had been kept on a professional level this wouls all have been over years ago
When did Bohs get involved in this? ;)
they are the biggest shower of tossers on these islands.....
these are the same dub knackers that will be standing on the hill in june singing come on you boys
Some of them, i'd say the hardcore idiots wouldnt go near Croke Park such is their hatred of the GAA.
Most of them couldn't be bothered to support the national team such is their hatred of all things FAI, John Delaney. Their radar of loyalty does not extend further than their club.
Mad thing is is that one of these 'Ultras' plays on our GAA team. You couldn't make it up..........it cracks me up every time. He told me during pints one night. Said that if they knew he was playing for us he'd be lynched. And yes, when the tickets are allocated for Croker he is up on the Hill with his Arnotts jersey.
Ultras me hole.
dublinfella
Quotewhereas the chair of a GAA club stating he wants to kill a soccer club gets applauded here
what are you on about?
Quote from: dodo on April 06, 2007, 02:07:03 PM
Mad thing is is that one of these 'Ultras' plays on our GAA team. You couldn't make it up..........it cracks me up every time. He told me during pints one night. Said that if they knew he was playing for us he'd be lynched. And yes, when the tickets are allocated for Croker he is up on the Hill with his Arnotts jersey.
Ultras me hole.
:D :D
Quote from: pintsofguinness on April 06, 2007, 02:20:08 PM
dublinfella
Quotewhereas the chair of a GAA club stating he wants to kill a soccer club gets applauded here
what are you on about?
I'd imagine it's the word on the street. Just as the word on the street had the judge scoffing at Thomas Davis' submission and the word on the street had the GAA requiring the IRFU to play videos of Gaelic games during the rugby matches at Croke Park.
Amasing what he'll choose to believe and ignore.
Basically he'll believe anything that discredits TD and he'll not believe anything that backs up TD.
It's not hard to see the slant is it? Didnt he pretend to be a member of TD originally?
More lies and propaganda.
Quote from: tayto on April 06, 2007, 05:13:14 PM
Amasing what he'll choose to believe and ignore.
Basically he'll believe anything that discredits TD and he'll not believe anything that backs up TD.
It's not hard to see the slant is it? Didnt he pretend to be a member of TD originally?
More lies and propaganda.
I don't think dublinfella ever claimed to be a member of Thomas Davis, but he did claim that a well-connected member of said club told him that it was all a ruse and they were determined to destroy soccer in Tallaght. It was scarcely believable at the time that this person would give such explosive information to either someone they didn't know or someone they DID know and therefore knew they were hostile to TD's stance on the matter, and it's even less believable now. It reminds me of the way Del Boy used always invoke his mother on her deathbed to get Rodney to do something, e.g. "Del Boy, send Rodney for the fish".
He did however claim to be a GAA man and not a Rovers fan and repeatedly referred to the GAA as "us" or "we" on posts.
Hilarious stuff
You sad patethic losers...John O Donohue is a legend.At least he can see through you lot of greedy b*****ds.TD need to just face it..there only prolonging the inevitable.Soccer is the biggest sport in the Tallaght area and thats the way its staying.Now that Croke Park is open to other sports its the start of the end of GAA dominance as a sport in the country as a whole.Up the Eircom League. ;D ;D ;D
QuoteYou sad patethic losers...John O Donohue is a legend.At least he can see through you lot of greedy b*****ds.TD need to just face it..there only prolonging the inevitable.Soccer is the biggest sport in the Tallaght area and thats the way its staying.Now that Croke Park is open to other sports its the start of the end of GAA dominance as a sport in the country as a whole.Up the Eircom League.
At least we have enough education to know to put spaces after full stops. :)
When exactly will the mighty Eircom league be needing Croke Pk for its big games?
Quote from: Hooperama on April 10, 2007, 03:15:58 PM
Now that Croke Park is open to other sports its the start of the end of GAA dominance as a sport in the country as a whole.Up the Eircom League. ;D ;D ;D
Good first post :D
Probably the most pathetic statement every posted on this site-and that is saying something considering the sh1t that is spouted here.
Wake up & smell the coffee Hooper-brainless idiot
Quote from: Hooperama on April 10, 2007, 03:15:58 PM
You sad patethic losers...John O Donohue is a legend.At least he can see through you lot of greedy b*****ds.TD need to just face it..there only prolonging the inevitable.Soccer is the biggest sport in the Tallaght area and thats the way its staying.Now that Croke Park is open to other sports its the start of the end of GAA dominance as a sport in the country as a whole.Up the Eircom League. ;D ;D ;D
Possibly the funniest first post I have ever read.
The "Ultras" obviously sent in their best debater eh? :D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 04, 2007, 06:32:43 PM
I notice that the Ultras forum has gone private, so the general public can't view it.
Username: bugmenot
Password: bugmenot
Not "fcukoffanddie" then?
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 10, 2007, 03:44:04 PM
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on April 04, 2007, 06:32:43 PM
I notice that the Ultras forum has gone private, so the general public can't view it.
Username: bugmenot
Password: bugmenot
whats the site address fintona ?
Hooperama left his e-mail adress accessible online also.
Must have been intentional ;)
sidrico77@yahoo.co.uk
Quotesidrico77@yahoo.co.uk
A UK address, why am I not suprised?
Sometimes you lot have me in stitches of laughter :D with your stupid comments and ridiculous statements.(Armaghniac) and I quote..."At least we have enough education to put full stops at the end of our sentences" and (full back) and again I quote.."probably the most pathetic post ever posted on this website"...C'mon lads is that the best the you can come up with you f***ing idiots. ;D ;D ;D
Do you honestly think you deserve reasoned debate?
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Classy bunch them ultras! :-*
That's just yer man - Roversfella - re-registered. There couldn't be two intolerable gobshites with the same twisted view on things and the same, ahem, "style" of posting.
More people turned up for the minor football final replay then turned up for the FAI cup final, their marquee day, last year. It's no wonder they're so bitter. 8)
Can someone please post the numbers for
GAA members V FAI members
GAA Playing Members V FAI Members
GAA Attendances V Soccer Attendances (You can include International as I am so confident soccer will still be dwarfed)
GAA will never die, but the Eircom League & all other indigenous soccer had a still birth
Ive just registered as a user of this forum as I have been keeping my eye on it for the last couple of days.First of all I apologise for that idiot Hooperama who ever he is. I am a die hard Shamrock Rovers fan.Im not an Ultra but know quite a few of them. I have to be honest lads and say that some of the stuff posted on this particular forum is way over the top regarding Shamrock Rovers supporters.Dont account for that idiot Hooperama.You have to remember it is a very serious and sensitive issue regarding the Tallaght stadium.Most of the Rovers fans remember Milltown and just crave and dream their own Stadium.So for it to be snatched away at the last minute is heart breaking.
Its Jon O'Donoghue who is the issue here, not Shams or their fans. Its regrettable that their long awaited stadium is being delayed but I'd support Thomas Davis' actions 100%
If I may make a suggestion. Let's not encourage any of these gougers to start posting on this site, they're never going to agree with the Gaa on this or any other issue, but they'll happily sit here posting abuse and winding people up for a long time.
Exactly, dublinfella = hooperama = good relations = ::)
Funny that once dublinfella was discredited he dissappeared and hooperama appeared.
He couldnt be taken seriously after his first post then good relations appeared, hmmmmmmmm.
Well lads its obvious theres no way that you lot can have a serious debate about it so that says it all for me. As far as I am concerned Thomas Davis are only putting off the inevitable and this time next year Rovers will be sole tennants in the Tallaght Stadium.The GAA have no hope on this one... :-* :-*
Any guesses as to his next username?
I'm going for Fuckoffanddie :o
For what its worth Im not that PRAT hooperama or what ever his name was.But DubNut you come across as been even a bigger idiot than him.I bet ya have never even been to a Rovers Game... ;) ;)
Quote from: Good Relations on April 11, 2007, 04:18:06 PM
For what its worth Im not that PRAT hooperama or what ever his name was.But DubNut you come across as been even a bigger idiot than him.I bet ya have never even been to a Rovers Game... ;) ;)
If he is not a rovers support, or even a soccer supporter as has been stated on this site before,
WHY would he go and watch a boring soccer game when he can go and watch an exciting GAA game be it football or hurling?
Quote from: Good Relations on April 11, 2007, 03:34:16 PM
Well lads its obvious theres no way that you lot can have a serious debate about it so that says it all for me. As far as I am concerned Thomas Davis are only putting off the inevitable and this time next year Rovers will be sole tennants in the Tallaght Stadium.The GAA have no hope on this one... :-* :-*
Not very likely, if magickingdom's observation on the O'Donoghue ranting etc thread is anything to go by
this is a disaster for shamrock rovers. a judicial review can only be granted on a point of law so now its off to the high court. if it goes on the high court list (it may go to the commercial court which is quicker) it could be well into next year before it comes up. then appeals to the supreme court.... have we quit yet? had the result gone rovers way today then it was over they had won and td had no where to go.... so now hopefully some compromise can be worked out so that everyone gets somethingUnless you have some contrary insight into this, I'd say this one is going to drag on for years
(http://www.srfcultras.net/image/obj20geo4pg1p11.jpg)
nice people these rovers fans
Quote from: dubnut on April 11, 2007, 10:40:31 AM
Exactly, dublinfella = hooperama = good relations = ::)
Funny that once dublinfella was discredited he dissappeared and hooperama appeared.
He couldnt be taken seriously after his first post then good relations appeared, hmmmmmmmm.
discredited? ;D
just because a few mutants like you decided i was a 'soccer fan' rather than debate the issues? ::)
i glance at this site every few days, but its gone down the tubes of late. 80% of the posters are semi literate mongs and any deviation away from the cosy consensus gets labelled owc'ers, rovers fans, huns, backwoodsmen or whatever. its pathetic and as there is nothing posted here of any relevance anymore, i get my news from forums that arent as vicious and insular.
i profoundly hope that most of the posters here are kids, because if this site is representitive of the average attitude and intellect of the GAA membership, we are fucked.
I think the various ad hominem attacks on dublinfella have been bang out of order. We don't need to descend to the levels of those banner-wielding Shamrock Rovers fans.
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 09:16:16 PM
I think the various ad hominem attacks on dublinfella have been bang out of order. We don't need to descend to the levels of those banner-wielding Shamrock Rovers fans.
no, you would rather support the right of the chair of TD to actually stae he was out to kill a rival sports club than a few fans who are exasperated their stadium project has been delayed another two years....
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 09:21:09 PM
no, you would rather support the right of the chair of TD to actually stae he was out to kill a rival sports club than a few fans who are exasperated their stadium project has been delayed another two years....
Where did the chair of TD say that he wanted to "kill" Shamrock Rovers? And how does it tally with this?
We are pleased that the High Court has granted leave for our judicial review against the March 2006 planning decision of the South Dublin County Coucil to proceed.
This outcome confirms that there are substantial grounds for the position which Thomas Davis have taken on this matter and also makes it clear that whoever else may be responsible for the delays caused over the past 12 months to the completion of the Tallaght Stadium, it is not Thomas Davis.
However, there are no victories in this process. In our view, Thomas Davis and the GAA community, Shamrock Rovers and their supporters, and the entire community in Tallaght are all victims of the totally intransigent and untenable position that has been adopted by the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, John O'Donoghue, in relation to the stadium. Ultimately the Minister's position will have to change.
Our objective is to ensure that the stadium is developed to the benefit of the entire community in Tallaght including the GAA, but recognising the priority use of the stadium by Shamrock Rovers. We have been pursuing a number of measures to give life to this objective in recent weeks and will be up-scaling these efforts in the weeks ahead and thereafter while we await the substantive planning point coming before the court.
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 09:42:29 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 09:21:09 PM
no, you would rather support the right of the chair of TD to actually stae he was out to kill a rival sports club than a few fans who are exasperated their stadium project has been delayed another two years....
Where did the chair of TD say that he wanted to "kill" Shamrock Rovers? And how does it tally with this?
We are pleased that the High Court has granted leave for our judicial review against the March 2006 planning decision of the South Dublin County Coucil to proceed.
This outcome confirms that there are substantial grounds for the position which Thomas Davis have taken on this matter and also makes it clear that whoever else may be responsible for the delays caused over the past 12 months to the completion of the Tallaght Stadium, it is not Thomas Davis.
However, there are no victories in this process. In our view, Thomas Davis and the GAA community, Shamrock Rovers and their supporters, and the entire community in Tallaght are all victims of the totally intransigent and untenable position that has been adopted by the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, John O'Donoghue, in relation to the stadium. Ultimately the Minister's position will have to change.
Our objective is to ensure that the stadium is developed to the benefit of the entire community in Tallaght including the GAA, but recognising the priority use of the stadium by Shamrock Rovers. We have been pursuing a number of measures to give life to this objective in recent weeks and will be up-scaling these efforts in the weeks ahead and thereafter while we await the substantive planning point coming before the court.
Remember the 'last man standing' email?
He has made more than one comment in public on this. Privately, he is far less guarded on the matter. Do to the Blue Haven in Templeogue, buy him a pint and massage his ego. He will tell you all about his intentions then....
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 09:47:19 PM
Remember the 'last man standing' email?
He has made more than one comment in public on this. Privately, he is far less guarded on the matter. Do to the Blue Haven in Templeogue, buy him a pint and massage his ego. He will tell you all about his intentions then....
Your credibility with regard to what people say in private is in tatters, so forgive me if I discount all this man-in-the-pub stuff, okay?
I think it's a shame that Dublinfella and Good Relations are being dimissed as WUM's or gougers. I did'nt think agreeeing with the GAA point of view (or at least as it is expressed on this site) was a prerequisite for posting. Personally I welcome other points of view being expressed,fair and reasoned debate should be encouraged, on some of the soccer sites any of the posters who don't tow the party line re the GAA are often similarily dismissed, which is pathetic IMO. Dublinfella or Good Relations don't come across as WUM's to me, infact dublinfella has argued his point ( re Tallaght) pretty well, though he has avoided some pertinent questions put to him by some of the more informed posters.I don't know enough about the situation in Tallaght to make a comment on it however from reading the threads I do feel that TD have a reasonable gripe and that dublinfella's primary objection is that TD are engaging in this for the sole reason of destroying SR.If Good Relations is a genuine poster who came on here to debate the situation then he should be welcomed, if he shows himself to be a WUM then it's easy to ignore his posts.
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 09:49:58 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 09:47:19 PM
Remember the 'last man standing' email?
He has made more than one comment in public on this. Privately, he is far less guarded on the matter. Do to the Blue Haven in Templeogue, buy him a pint and massage his ego. He will tell you all about his intentions then....
Your credibility with regard to what people say in private is in tatters, so forgive me if I discount all this man-in-the-pub stuff, okay?
Its called local knowledge Deiseach. He aint a popular fellow. There are a lot of grumblings in Dublin about the DCB;s role in all this, why else did someone in GAA circles leak his scurrilious email to the Indo?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 09:55:46 PM
Its called local knowledge Deiseach. He aint a popular fellow. There are a lot of grumblings in Dublin about the DCB;s role in all this, why else did someone in GAA circles leak his scurrilious email to the Indo?
Local knowledge? How do we know you have local knowledge? You've been quite happy in the past to trumpet the mutterings of those who have been demonstrated (to be charitable about it; there are much more sulphurous interpretations) to know naff all about the matter at hand. So I don't see why I should take your claims to local knowledge at face value.
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 10:04:52 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 09:55:46 PM
Its called local knowledge Deiseach. He aint a popular fellow. There are a lot of grumblings in Dublin about the DCB;s role in all this, why else did someone in GAA circles leak his scurrilious email to the Indo?
Local knowledge? How do we know you have local knowledge? You've been quite happy in the past to trumpet the mutterings of those who have been demonstrated (to be charitable about it; there are much more sulphurous interpretations) to know naff all about the matter at hand. So I don't see why I should take your claims to local knowledge at face value.
OK lets go at this the other way; if Kennedy and his use of TD as a vehicle in the courts is actually supported by the Dublin GAA and wider community, you will find me one local TD, councellor, election candidate, community group, even another GAA club in the area ffs (remember 6 originally took this case, 5 have dropped out) that support TD on this. One. Anyone in a civic or sporting capacity that believe that their actions are for the good.
This is the action of a crank who is relying on the average GAA mans sense of community to defend his actions. No other GAA forum gives him the support this one does.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 10:11:48 PM
OK lets go at this the other way; if Kennedy and his use of TD as a vehicle in the courts is actually supported by the Dublin GAA and wider community, you will find me one local TD, councellor, election candidate, community group, even another GAA club in the area ffs (remember 6 originally took this case, 5 have dropped out) that support TD on this. One. Anyone in a civic or sporting capacity that believe that their actions are for the good.
The wider GAA, as represented by the President, have expressed their support for Thomas Davis' position, and I've yet to see the other clubs that you mention say they don't support them. If you had a shred of evidence to suggest this to be the case, I'm sure we'd have heard of it by now. As for the politicians, I'd imagine most of them would hope this would go away. Coming down on either side in such an unpredictable battle - witness your oft-stated conviction that the whole thing would be stopped by the beak before it even started - would be political stupidity.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 10:11:48 PM
This is the action of a crank who is relying on the average GAA mans sense of community to defend his actions. No other GAA forum gives him the support this one does.
The people over on AFR, the only other GAA forum I frequent, seem to be pretty much behind Thomas Davis. Granted, it isn't as (ahem) aggressive as it is over here, but the consensus there is clear. If that's the viewpoint of the moderate GAA, then Thomas Davis have nothing to worry about on that score.
Oh, and spare us the whole 'crank' routine. The statement I quoted above is from the Executive Committee of Thomas Davis GAA club. Louis Kilcoyne he ain't.
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 10:30:22 PM
As for the politicians, I'd imagine most of them would hope this would go away. Coming down on either side in such an unpredictable battle - witness your oft-stated conviction that the whole thing would be stopped by the beak before it even started - would be political stupidity.
so no, you couldnt find anyone willing to back TD?
Bertie Aherne, Taoiseach, turned the sod on the stadium and will be at the Milltown 20 commeration tomorrow.
John O'Donoghue Minister for Sport who has stuck to his guns
Pat Rabbite, local TD who has expressed dissapointment in the TD position and supported Rovers since the plans were drawn up
Charlie O'Connor, local TD who has taken out membership of the 400c and goes to every game.
Sean Crowe local TD who has repeatedly come out in support of Rovers. (3 out of 4 local TD's has publically supported Rovers)
and every single councellor in the SDCC who voted for a soccer only stadium when last asked.
Come on Deiseach, real world please.
Why don't they rename the club "roserovers" seeing they are so anti-gaelic. 8)
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 10:40:14 PM
and every single councellor in the SDCC who voted for a soccer only stadium when last asked.
I like that - "when last asked". Remind us what the result of the previous vote was?
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 11:11:49 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 10:40:14 PM
and every single councellor in the SDCC who voted for a soccer only stadium when last asked.
I like that - "when last asked". Remind us what the result of the previous vote was?
and ill remind you what the one before that was.... you either support the democratic process or you dont.
the real reason for the hostility from sections of the GAA on this is simple. For probably the first time ever the state said 'no' to the association. And this has caused profound confusion and anguish from the old guard.
Not only have we got FF and SF TD's openly supporting Rovers over the GAA, a Kerry minister for sport who used to be the chairman of his club has decided to go against the association line and do another sport an overdue favour. Queue him being threatned, abused and called an enemy of the GAA for the simple reason he wont allow a GAA club dictate funding towords soccer.
This is simply slow learners in the GAA not realising they dont have the political clout of old. Despite a clear media campaign against JO'D and Rovers.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 11:19:19 PM
and ill remind you what the one before that was.... you either support the democratic process or you dont.
If that's the case, I don't. Democratically elected politicians cannot subvert the law, and Thomas Davis' stance has been demonstrated through the courts to have merit, that
Quotethe council decision of February 13th, 2006, individually and exclusively affected the GAA club. The stadium was in the club's area and the GAA club was the most likely to derive the most immediate and frequent benefit from access to the stadium, the judge said. It had established a "substantial interest" in the case and had raised the necessary "substantial" grounds required for leave to be given for judicial review of planning decisions.
Without wanting to resort to hyperbole, it's a good thing that elected politicians are held to be accountable to the law. I dread a world where decisions are made on the basis of what 50% + 1 want.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 11:19:19 PMthe real reason for the hostility from sections of the GAA on this is simple. For probably the first time ever the state said 'no' to the association. And this has caused profound confusion and anguish from the old guard.
Not only have we got FF and SF TD's openly supporting Rovers over the GAA, a Kerry minister for sport who used to be the chairman of his club has decided to go against the association line and do another sport an overdue favour. Queue him being threatned, abused and called an enemy of the GAA for the simple reason he wont allow a GAA club dictate funding towords soccer.
This is simply slow learners in the GAA not realising they dont have the political clout of old. Despite a clear media campaign against JO'D and Rovers.
The rest of this . . . well, we've been down this road many times. The idea that anyone owes Rovers anything is one I don't agree with. If they put up even 50% of the money towards this project, I'd probably change my tune. But at the current rates of funding, I'll support anyone who is willing to yell "stop!"
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 11:42:35 PM
If that's the case, I don't. Democratically elected politicians cannot subvert the law, and Thomas Davis' stance has been demonstrated through the courts to have merit, that
What 'law' did the 'politicians' break? The case is about the timing of amendments to the county managers plan. Purely a technical issue.
Why are TD allowed bring pressure to bear on the local councellors but not the department who are inolved in the process?
Quoteyou either support the democratic process or you dont.
Soccerfella,
you're a complete hypocrite.
If you were a true democrat (as opposed to an anti gaa, pro sham rovers fantasist), you would deplore the minister's subversion of local democracy, when he
1.forced SDCC to overturn their original decision to allow gaelic games to be played.
2. ignored the public consultation which overwhelmingly backed access for gaelic games.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1795877&issue_id=15386
However, after
a public consultation process and following a recommendation by the Tallaght Area Committee in November 2005, the County Manager's proposal was altered to one in favour of a multi-sport stadium, involving the development of a larger-sized pitch suitable for Gaelic games.
The council, on December 12, 2005, unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of the second proposal.
However, after it was told that the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, John O'Donoghue would only provide funding for a soccer-only stadium, on February 13, 2006, the council passed a resolution which reverted to the original proposals.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 11, 2007, 11:50:29 PM
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 11:42:35 PM
If that's the case, I don't. Democratically elected politicians cannot subvert the law, and Thomas Davis' stance has been demonstrated through the courts to have merit, that
What 'law' did the 'politicians' break? The case is about the timing of amendments to the county managers plan. Purely a technical issue.
Why are TD allowed bring pressure to bear on the local councellors but not the department who are inolved in the process?
Technicalities ARE the law. Calling something a technicality might make it sound trivial, but it's still law and not even elected representatives can break it.
Quote from: snatter on April 11, 2007, 11:51:22 PM
Soccerfella
This is where I came in and where I'm leaving it for the night. Can we all leave the soccerfella / roversfella / whateveryourehavingyourselffella jibes out?
Quote from: snatter on April 11, 2007, 11:51:22 PM
Quoteyou either support the democratic process or you dont.
Soccerfella,
you're a complete hypocrite.
If you were a true democrat (as opposed to an anti gaa, pro sham rovers fantasist), you would deplore the minister's subversion of local democracy, when he
1.forced SDCC to overturn their original decision to allow gaelic games to be played.
2. ignored the public consultation which overwhelmingly backed access for gaelic games.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1795877&issue_id=15386
However, after a public consultation process and following a recommendation by the Tallaght Area Committee in November 2005, the County Manager's proposal was altered to one in favour of a multi-sport stadium, involving the development of a larger-sized pitch suitable for Gaelic games.
The council, on December 12, 2005, unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of the second proposal.
However, after it was told that the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, John O'Donoghue would only provide funding for a soccer-only stadium, on February 13, 2006, the council passed a resolution which reverted to the original proposals.
During the public consultation process TD lobbied the individual councellors. They were the only dissenting voices. THIS CHANGE WAS CONDITIONAL ON THE FUNDING REMAINING IN PLACE.
Again, how is TD lobbying councellors acceptible, whereas the minister who is funding the stadium involving himself in the process is a gross perversion of democracy?
Twice the council have voted in favour of the original plan.when the minister pointed out consequences of having to rip up the stadium, foundations, drainage and reduce the capacity to one fifth of its original size they reverted.
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 11:58:31 PM
Quote from: snatter on April 11, 2007, 11:51:22 PM
Soccerfella
This is where I came in and where I'm leaving it for the night. Can we all leave the soccerfella / roversfella / whateveryourehavingyourselffella jibes out?
either argue your corner or dont.
when challenged to use their grey matter 90% of posters on this site revert to childish insult.
would you prefer if this was all a happy clappy agreeable brothers site? sad.
At the end of the day I think it boils down to jus a few things....
1: Thomas Davis and the GAA in general (around Tallaght) dont like to see soccer doing well.
2: Rovers were quite happy to let under GAA age matches take place on the pitch,but oh no TD wanted senior matches to be held on it despite the fact that there is fantastic facilities in Tallaght and surrounding areas to hold such matches.
3: I think TD are afraid that soccer will dominate the area as far as under participation in sports is concerned and this is totally ridiculous as there are are just as many GAA clubs around Tallaght providing under age facilities as there are soccer.
Lastly, just as an overall suggestion to get the GAA lads thinking...Supposed a soccer club asked to use a publicly funded GAA ground as there home pitch for a season..What would the reaction be. Suppose Cork city for example wanted to play in Pairc Ui Chaoimh in Cork..I know what the reaction would be down there.
1] I don't know anyone who cares how soccer is doing. You say it like liverpool or man united are coming to tallaght.
2] There is a need for a southside venue for matches involving southside dublin clubs. Possibly the odd Dublin match. There is a new south Dublin team coming into the hurling league and they need a home ground. Seriously it's a losing battle to try and undermine the GAAs need for a southside venue. The GAA don;t need a stadia for juvenille matches, they can play in the facilities already owned by the clubs in the area.
3] Arent rovers underage sections already in the area? I cant imagine a bigger turn off for kids then watching Eircom league football. Any eircom league matches i've been to the kids are playing with their mates.
Quote from: tayto on April 12, 2007, 10:00:43 AM
I cant imagine a bigger turn off for kids then watching Eircom league football. Any eircom league matches i've been to the kids are playing with their mates.
:D
Quote from: Hardy on April 12, 2007, 10:12:53 AM
Quote from: tayto on April 12, 2007, 10:00:43 AM
I cant imagine a bigger turn off for kids then watching Eircom league football. Any eircom league matches i've been to the kids are playing with their mates.
:D
It's funny but it's true. kids running amuck. A lot of them in man united or liverpool gear.
Those figures make for stark reading don't they. Appaling attendances. Imagine going full time on the back of those figures, little wonder the league is a mess.
Good Relations:
Quote1: Thomas Davis and the GAA in general (around Tallaght) dont like to see soccer doing well.
1. I suppose Shamrock Rovers and the soccer community in general (around Tallaght) love seeing the GAA doing well?
All Thomas Davis and the GAA want is a fair deal and the law has upheld the view that they have a case. THAT is the democratic process (that Dublinfella cribs on about) in action.
This notion that the Chairman of TD is on a solo run is complete nonsense too. People like him that put in many hours of work for no financial reward scare the average Joe. Most folk cannot understand that type of dedication and are all too willing to believe any lie indicating its not as it seems. Anything to make them feel better for sitting on their own holes doing nothing. That's just society unfortunately. If he was on a solo run and as big an ogre as Dublinfella paints him he'd have been got rid of long ago.
John O'Donoghue is simply wrong here but as proven throughout his career he is incapable of compromise and unswerving in his belief in himself. After the election he will not be Minsiter for Sport - whether FF get in or not. A solution, suitable for all sides will then be worked out.
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 12, 2007, 11:17:09 AM
People like him that put in many hours of work for no financial reward scare the average Joe. Most folk cannot understand that type of dedication and are all too willing to believe any lie indicating its not as it seems. Anything to make them feel better for sitting on their own holes doing nothing. That's just society unfortunately.
That's a good point and well observed. Sadly, it is quite common for people involved in community activities to have their motives impugned.
And I speak as one of those sitting on his hole doing nothing.
There is a need for a southside venue for matches involving southside dublin clubs. Possibly the odd Dublin match. There is a new south Dublin team coming into the hurling league and they need a home ground. Seriously it's a losing battle to try and undermine the GAAs need for a southside venue. The GAA don;t need a stadia for juvenille matches, they can play in the facilities already owned by the clubs in the area.
Your way off the mark there with that one.Whats wrong with Southside teams travelling to Parnell Park.The odd Dublin match :D :D
Are ya joking me or what..Thats pathetic.Trying to undermine the GAA..Well what is the GAA doing to soccer..Think before you speak.. >:( >:(
You never gave an answer to the final question.What about GAA grounds around the country opening up to local soccer clubs???
Galway United 1.148
Shamrock Rovers 1.089
Dundalk FC 1.078
Finn Harps 428
Athlone Town 421
Cobh Ramblers 368
Limerick 364
Kildare County 265
Monaghan United 204
Kilkenny City 122
Overall - 570
Youre way off the mark with that number for Rovers...I was at every home game last season and Rovers
always get at least 3,000 home fans to there matches.When they do get to Tallaght in a soccer only venue Id say the
attendance will at least double and we will build up a huge fan base.So get stats and figures right.
Oh right so the GAA would have no use for a stadium in south dublin, is that your arguement? Is that actually it? Funny then that we'll have to develop one if we dont get into Tallaght. Seems a crazy thing to do if there's no logical use for one.
Think before i speak? ahahhaha
What about GAA grounds opening to local soccer? You STILL seem to think this is a soccer ground. IT IS NOT. it IS a municipal stadium. For the love of god the differences are profound, are you too stupid to see the difference between owning something and renting something? public money and private money.
That's it. You're either stupid or barking mad. probably both. ??? ::) ::) ::)
to try and make these loosers see sense is a loosing battle tayto. i think its blind stupidity coupled with the fact that they dont want to admit that the gaa has a very valid point. those who follow the inferior ground game appear to have little respect.
You see it is not a municipal stadium...Rovers started building it as a soccer stadium and the council are finishing it as
a soccer only stadium..So your also saying that every county ground in Ireland was built with no public spending what so ever.
Again another stupid statement from you.
Behind the wire..There just doesn't seem to be any point to try and have a valid debate/conversation with you. Your calling Rovers supporters loosers.That doesn't say much for your mentality.Very short line of thinking. ;D ;D
good relations we have tried to be reasonable with u, but u just dont want to even consider our opinion. we are fed up with your arguments which in the opinion of most right minded people on here dont carry any weight. thats why i have resorted to calling you a loser. (which i think you are).
by the way, would you be dublinfella by any chance?
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 12:48:19 PM
Rovers started building it as a soccer stadium and the council are finishing it
:D :D :D
In one little phrase, so much is summed up.
Definitely not Dublinfella for one....You have to understand that Rovers fans are amoungst the most passionate supporters
in the Country.We own Shamrock Rovers literally.So to have your dreams put on the long finger for almost 10 years and then finally to think that that your dream will be a reality only to have it snatched away at the last minute is heart breaking.And Im not looking for sympathy here just stating it from a Rovers supporters point of view. Now if TD just kept there noses out of Rovers affairs this would not be an issue.The GAA are very quiet on all this.
Good Relations, I have no doubt that you are not Dublinfella - to be fair to him, he did argue a reasonably good case against all the odds. I certainly didn't agree with most of what he said, and he greatly diminished his own credibility by all his comments about "....word on the grapevine...." and "....whispers in Dublin pubs...." but he did make several good points and on a lot of points of fact he was reasonably accurate.
He certainly never came out with anything like this:
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 12:48:19 PM
You see it is not a municipal stadium...Rovers started building it as a soccer stadium and the council are finishing it as
a soccer only stadium..So your also saying that every county ground in Ireland was built with no public spending what so ever.
Again another stupid statement from you.
Rovers, in their current incarnation as a "supporter owned" entity have contributed absolutely zero to the construction of this current stadium. Rovers in their previous incarnation may have contributed some money, albeit not much, but since they were a tax defaulting and non wage paying organisation I think we are being nice to ye by taking at face value that the new Rovers are a new concern.
As it happens most county grounds in Ireland were built with little or no public support. There may have been assistance to some, but it was some grant aid which in no case amounted to covering anything like the majority of the cost. Rovers on the other hand seem to think that they are entitled to this Municipal stadium, free, gratis, and with no strings attached, merely because they claim to be a "Community Organisation". This despite the fact that to the best of my knowledge they field considerably less juvenile teams than the GAA clubs in the Tallaght area, less adult teams than any single GAA club in the Tallaght area and I've never heard of them fielding any women's teams.
The council are supposedly finishing as a soccer stadium BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE that made them change an earlier resolution, interference that a court of the land has deemed questionable enough to be worthy of a judicial review.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 12:37:24 PM
Galway United 1.148
Shamrock Rovers 1.089
Dundalk FC 1.078
Finn Harps 428
Athlone Town 421
Cobh Ramblers 368
Limerick 364
Kildare County 265
Monaghan United 204
Kilkenny City 122
Overall - 570
Youre way off the mark with that number for Rovers...I was at every home game last season and Rovers
always get at least 3,000 home fans to there matches.When they do get to Tallaght in a soccer only venue Id say the
attendance will at least double and we will build up a huge fan base.So get stats and figures right.
It's exactly because of the likes of this kind of carry on that makes the rest of the country believe that the Eircom League is a basket case. These are the best we have in terms of official statistics, with Derry City claimed to have the best attendances in Ireland last year at a 3,000 or so average. Yet here you are claiming that Rovers had that while not even playing in the top flight. Now one of two things is going on here
Either
(1) You're plucking numbers from the deepest darkest recesses of your colon with no back up
or
(2) Clubs are under-reporting attendances on a large scale, thus meaning that their books are being kept incorrectly, which is the kind of carry on that led to Rovers going to the wall in the first place and the kind of carry on that means they shouldn't be let have any kind of government assistance, never mind the ridiculous largesse ye claim ye deserve.
Feel free to pick one - neither reflects well on you or your club.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 01:11:44 PM
Now if TD just kept there noses out of Rovers affairs this would not be an issue.
If Rovers were building a stadium, paying for it, applying for planning permission and going about it by themselves then it would be Rovers affairs. The fact that ye expect the council to build it for ye, and ye alone, makes it a public affair.
good man lone shark, you have said everything i was thinking. if the rovers 'supporters/owners/community workers' (delete as appropriate) arent able to grasp what you have just laid down in black and white then i think we should just give up.
good relations, sorry if you were offended by me thinking you might be dublinfella - its just that he hasnt been heard of i a while and you are a newbie 2+2= you know the craic.
Ha :D :D...Im sure if it became a public affair and was down to the good people of Tallaght what they wanted to see built Im 100% confident that they would want a soccer only stadium and to be honest TD are not making too many friends with all this.You obviously dont understand how the grants scheme works for County boards to build amenities for GAA purposes.If a grant is granted and in a lot of cases it is nearly 50% of the cost is put up by government.So that is a lot.
As far as I am concerned the GAA just hate to see soccer doing well despite the fact that it is the most participated sport in the country.
Twenty years to the day..
Today we've been without a home for 20 years. Respect to all who've stayed loyal throughout that time, respect to those who've become Hoops since we lost Milltown, and with deep respect for those we've lost along the way and those Hoops who've yet to come, let's do all in our power to end this nightmare.
Shamrock Rovers will never die.
QuoteShamrock Rovers will never die.
Or else, when it does, it will be resuscitated with public money, no questions asked and we'll all forget why it died in the first place.
Ye are gas lads.
As turk would say - Lone Shark destroyed Good Relations!
You didn't even attempt to address any of the issues. That is pathetic. I've no interest in getting involved in abuse across codes, but if you want to come on here and debate your case, then debate it. Don't just trot out little dreamy statements that will mean feck all to the peopl on here, people for whom supporting your club through thick and thin is just taken for granted, it's what we do. It's certainly nothing you want praise for.
So far you've
(1) Made statements about Rovers great attendances - without corroboration
(2) Made a bland statement about how the GAA hate to see soccer doing well - with no basis in fact. Thomas Davis GAA club are looking after their own interests, and the committee and chairman would be doing the club members a dis-service if they were not doing just that. I have no doubt that the club met on several occasions to discuss their options, and those members are the only people they've to answer to. They certainly couldn't care less, nor should they, about "not making too many friends"
(3) Stated that GAA grants tend to be of the order of 50% of the total cost - again with no corroboration. You are incorrect here, plain and simple. Rather than just accusations firing over and back about no proof on either side, my own county received €400,000 euro towards the cost of our new stand - a development that cost €5.5 million. Not nearly 50%, not even 10%.
(4) Stated that the people of Tallaght would want the stadium to be soccer only - again without corroboration. A quick tally of how many residents of greater Tallaght are members of Rovers vs how many residents are members of the 6 GAA clubs here would be extremely interesting.
I'm noticing a trend here. Things don't become facts just because you say they are - so either put up, or with the best will in the world, shut up. We are open to debate here, but what you're doing is not debate - it's hot air with no facts whatsoever.
Good man seanie ;D
Lone Shark hits the nail on the head with his summation. I took some time out of my horrendously busy schedule to check out the attendance figures on the Eircomloi website and they were waxing lyrical about the huge 17% increase in 2007 from 2006 on average attendances. It went from 1500 to 1800 approximately. If Derry have 3000(which I would not doubt) and Shams have, as GR has stated in excess of that, that how many are going to watch the other teams. I would say Cork have as large a following as Derry. These figures could not make a professional club self-sustainable by any manner of means. If Shams have 3000+ attending but only declaring 1500 odd then obviously Mr Cowen has a big interest still in their affairs.
One thing though worries me about this whole thing. While TD may have a very legitimate case to present, unfortunately we live in a strange(or perhaps corrupt might be a more apt word) country, and do not be surprised if the High Court is "influenced".
lone shark, have you ever considered a career at the four courts?
Quotelone shark, have you ever considered a career at the four courts?
He did, but got a suspended sentence :D
Ex gambling guru turns legal whizz. It has the makings of a beautiful story, but I'm not sure if my ilk would be welcome in such esteemed company....
Those wigs are rather fetching though.
im telling you shark, esteemed legal practitioners would have been proud of the argument you put forward there, very thorough!!!! the wigs dont come cheap but i have never heard of a poor bookie yet. havent heard much back from good vibrations, dont think he has much more to offer. the lone shark has dished out another lesson by the looks of things.
HaHaHa...All these fancy words and long statements means nothing to me.Im just interested in the day Rovers turn around and give TD and the GAA in general the finger with a hugh smile on their face.You are living in dreamland if you think the GAA will ever set foot in the new stadium.As Ive stated b4 TD are only pre longing there own agony.As regards facts to numbers to matches I have seen with my own two eyes that Rovers categorically get 3000 at least to their matches.What more do ya want.Your stupid idea of some sort of tax dodging scam is laughable at best.All your facts and figures will mean nothing when Rovers set foot in there new soccer only stadium. :D :D
QuoteI have seen with my own two eyes that Rovers categorically get 3000 at least to their matches
Then why do they not report that? Either your own two eyes are mistaken, or else Rovers are grossly underdeclaring their gate receipts.
Well, that's us told. :-*
Luckily long words, logic and facts are the bread and butter for law talking guys, you know, like high court judges.
The tone of that post just sums up the whole approach as far as I can see.
Good Relations, either you are a liar, Shamrock Rovers are liars or Eircom League are liars in respect of the figures for attendances. I know who my money is on.
The simple fact is that you can hide behind your Burberry caps all day but the law eventually comes to the fore. It is not easy to be granted leave to apply for judicial review therefore TD must, in the eyes of the law at least, have a fairly strong case to argue. Shams have tried to subvert the law before, they will not get round it this time.
3000 I tells ya...What more proof do ya want.Yous all seem certain that this Judicial Review is deffo paving the for TD.Do you even know what a judicial review is???? Its nothing in legal terms.
First of all I thought - the mask has slipped. Then something else came to mind.....
And there ya go again. Judging Rovers fans and slagging them off. Honestly the mentality in this place is that of an 8 year old.
ha ha ha yer priceless you know that. you should do stand up.
Quote3000 I tells ya...What more proof do ya want.Yous all seem certain that this Judicial Review is deffo paving the for TD.Do you even know what a judicial review is? Its nothing in legal terms.
Do you know what it is? Do you know what resolutions it can grant? do you know the remit of one?
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 01:36:54 PM
Ha :D :D...Im sure if it became a public affair and was down to the good people of Tallaght what they wanted to see built Im 100% confident that they would want a soccer only stadium and to be honest TD are not making too many friends with all this
::) ::) ::)
Firstly as it is public money involved, all taxpayers will have an interest.
Secondly in regards of Public support and the fact that TD are making no friends. The intercounty championship is due to start, as are many individual county championships. TD could petition many of these games the length and breath of the country and you would be astounded as to how much support they will recieve.
In every county in ireland there are clubs that have facilities, funded by themselves by hard graft, determination and the voluntary ethos of the GAA, that would put Shamrock Rovers to shame. Good relations, you forget, that as an association, the GAA has always though of those coming after them, to have an infrastructure in place as oppossed to the pay me brigade that have cleaned your sporting organisation.
Please answer Lonesharks queries with hard undisputable evidence, then you will be taken seriously !! Otherwise you are exposing yourself and your cronies as the muppets, i and many others belive you to be!
Good Relations, I argued on here that you should be welcomed and not dismissed because you're a soocer man arguing the Rovers case. However now that you've been engaged in debate you have reverted to not caring about "long statements or fancy words" instead rovers "giving the finger" to the GAA is your only concern. I had a pretty open mind about the whole issue, but when some of the substantive issues are put to you, you don't seem capable of responding. What I'd like to know is, if SR are willing to share the ground with TD if the capacity of the ground is suitable?, as there does'nt appear to be any other reasonable reason for not sharing a municiple ground.
Quote from: Bensars on April 12, 2007, 03:22:23 PM
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 01:36:54 PM
Firstly as it is public money involved, all taxpayers will have an interest.
If Thomas Davis argument is that because public money is involved in developing the stadium, therefore it should be open for all sports to use, can soccer and rugby clubs all over the country make the same argument in relation to any GAA ground that has received any public funding?
QuoteIt was 20 years ago today – the gates of Milltown closed forever, marking the passing of one of Ireland's most iconic football landmarks.
Shamrock Rovers supporters will gather at the site of their former home in Milltown this evening at 7pm to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the last competitive game at the famous Dublin stadium. All are welcome to attend.
Thursday marks the 20th anniversary of the Hoops' FAI Cup semi-final 1-1 draw with Sligo Rovers. That match will be remembered for an emotional pitch invasion at half-time by supporters of both clubs angered at the prospect of losing the stadium, which had been the home of the Hoops since 1926.
Supporters will gather at Glenmalure Park tomorrow evening at 7pm as part of the MILLTOWN20 series of events surrounding the anniversary.
The ceremony will include the launching of 200 green and white balloons with tags attached that offer free admission to Rovers' next home game, which is against Drogheda United on April 20th.
From the EircomLOI site
How are they going to sqeeze in another 200 on top of the "at least 3000" they are hitting for every game.
I hope there is no South Westerly breeze blowing this evening. We have enough rubbish problems in the Kingdom at the moment.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 03:15:40 PM
3000 I tells ya...What more proof do ya want.
Honest to Christ. I apologise wholeheartedly to Dublinfella on behalf of this board that this clown was mistaken for you. Like I said earlier, we disagree, but I can appreciate his position as heartfelt and thought out. This is just ridiculous.
You tell us? That's somehow supposed to be proof? Then please, if this is the case, why are the official FAI figures reporting one third of that? Squaring that circle would go a long way towards re-establishing some sort of credibility for yourself.
As for your attitude in general, I have to say that your username is getting more farcical by the second.
Dublin15man, the support the GAA received for their projects from the exchequer tends to be of the order of 10% assistance and the like - witness the example i've given with O'Connor Park. In some cases it may be marginally more, but in all cases the majority of the funding has to be found by the GAA county or club board involved, and as was pointed out, it always was. The GAA had clubhouses throughout the seventies and eighties, a time when Government funding for these projects was non-existent. The GAA has no more responsibility to house the homeless sports than the recipient of mortgage interest relief has to house the homeless, since the level of support is comparable.
Shamrock Rovers are not receiving grant aid towards a private project - a municipal stadium is being built, a stadium to which they are contributing absolutely nothing except freeloading. Nothing. And yet they seem to think they have the right to decide who can freeload with them.
Grant assisted private facility - municipal stadium. Keep trying, ye'll get the distinction yet.
Quote from: dublin15man on April 12, 2007, 03:29:06 PM
Firstly as it is public money involved, all taxpayers will have an interest.
If Thomas Davis argument is that because public money is involved in developing the stadium, therefore it should be open for all sports to use, can soccer and rugby clubs all over the country make the same argument in relation to any GAA ground that has received any public funding?
I stated " all taxpayers will have an interest". Let me know which word you are confused about ??
Also can you also let me know how much of the building costs have shamrock rovers contributed ?
Quotecan soccer and rugby clubs all over the country make the same argument in relation to any GAA ground that has received any public funding?
How many municipal grounds are being used around the country for rugby and Gaelic. ??
QuoteIts the principle at stake not the percentage.
You couldn't make it up!
Bring back Fearon, all is forgiven!
Proof of funding...Well hear ya go...
The Sports Capital Grants for 2007 - 85 million Euros in all - were announced yesterday.
Although the grants in Dublin are fairly well spread, the grants around the country are ludicrously biased towards GAA. In some counties, almost 100 per cent of the money has gone to GAA. These f**kers appear to be using and abusing the grant funding to gain a complete strangle-hold on rural communities. As usual, many of the towns involved are so small that I've never heard of them - yet the handful of GAA members there get to build a clubhouse for themselves.
Bizarrely - if you scroll down through the grants for Dublin, you will note that Thomas Davis have received ANOTHER 200,000 Euros. What's that about?!
Here's the list:
http://www.arts-sport-tourism.gov.ie...ortgrants.html
__________________
S theres proof of attendances and proof of grants....
Dublin 15 man. You think that's a strong argument??? Jesus wept, clutching at straws more like.
Do you know what a municipal stadium is? Do you understand the difference between privately owned and publicly owned? Renting something and owning something.
This is basic stuff.
QuoteThese f**kers appear to be using and abusing the grant funding to gain a complete strangle-hold on rural communities. As usual, many of the towns involved are so small that I've never heard of them - yet the handful of GAA members there get to build a clubhouse for themselves.
Oh my God it gets worse! Whoever is on this wind up please stop. I'm going to get fired if I keep laughing out loud like this.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 03:52:51 PM
Proof of funding...Well hear ya go...
The Sports Capital Grants for 2007 - 85 million Euros in all - were announced yesterday.
Although the grants in Dublin are fairly well spread, the grants around the country are ludicrously biased towards GAA. In some counties, almost 100 per cent of the money has gone to GAA. These f**kers appear to be using and abusing the grant funding to gain a complete strangle-hold on rural communities. As usual, many of the towns involved are so small that I've never heard of them - yet the handful of GAA members there get to build a clubhouse for themselves.
Bizarrely - if you scroll down through the grants for Dublin, you will note that Thomas Davis have received ANOTHER 200,000 Euros. What's that about?!
Here's the list:
http://www.arts-sport-tourism.gov.ie...ortgrants.html
__________________
Yer, indeed, those are sports capital grants. Open to ANY sports organisation that has the gumption to get of their arse and develop a project for which they raise a significant funding for themselves. Grants that ANY sports club can pllay for. How do i apply for a free 10,000 seater stadium? Do i need to default on my tax first?
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 12, 2007, 03:58:13 PM
QuoteThese f**kers appear to be using and abusing the grant funding to gain a complete strangle-hold on rural communities. As usual, many of the towns involved are so small that I've never heard of them - yet the handful of GAA members there get to build a clubhouse for themselves.
Oh my God it gets worse! Whoever is on this wind up please stop. I'm going to get fired if I keep laughing out loud like this.
Town he's never heard of ... dear god .... this guy must be having a laugh. no one is this thick ... are they ....
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 03:54:11 PM
S theres proof of attendances and proof of grants....
I think you just need to be loved.
Do you have a girlfriend....
I know a few non-fussy ladies, not lookers but great personalities....I can introduce you....
bordering on desperate, but they'd love you...
He who laughs last laughs the loudest....
:D :D :D
You gotta love the "GAA is getting all the money" stuff.
It's as simple as this. There are more clubs, with more cub members and volinteers in the GAA then any other sport.
These clubs arent crippled by paying players wages that they can't afford, therefore they can use the money they raise to invest in facilities, which the government rightly gives grant aid towards.
This is only proper and right.
These grants are open to any club that is well run. It only makes sense that the bigger an association the more money it'll recieve in this manner.
Comparing this level of funding to the Tallaght situation is a total red herring.
QuoteThomas Davis are arguing that because public funding is involved they have a right to its use. The same argument will be turned and used against some GAA facility by a soccer or rugby club.
That is not their point at all and i'd love to know where you're getting that from.
The point is the County Council are building a municipal stadium in their catchment area and they want to be able to use it. As was initially agreed before John O'Donoghue waded in.
Quote from: dublin15man on April 12, 2007, 04:13:51 PM
But my point is, that Thomas Davis are arguing that because public funding is involved they have a right to its use. The same argument will be turned and used against some GAA facility by a soccer or rugby club.
No they aren't - you haven't been listening. The SDCC decided that as a municipal stadium was being built, it should accomodate all the main spectator and participation sports in the area - the main ones being soccer and football. The minister weighed in by saying that he would only fund a soccer only stadium.
Thomas Davis are arguing that this was undue influence from the minister, and thus against the law. They are not arguing that the Government can't build a stadium for Rovers, or anyone they like - they are arguing that the Minister influenced the SDCC's decision.
I'm aware that subtle nuances tend to get lost on ye in general, but the Thomas Davis argument is not that if public funding was involved then they are entitled to a share.
Put it another way - Athlone Town got as near to total funding as made no difference for their new stadium. Garrycastle GAA club have not made the slightest move against this, despite being less than half a mile away. The difference is they were not earmarked to go into the stadium in the first place.
Now i don't think Athlone Town deserved such huge support either, but the difference is the law was not contravened here.
Good Relations first post:
QuoteIve just registered as a user of this forum as I have been keeping my eye on it for the last couple of days.First of all I apologise for that idiot Hooperama who ever he is.
After 10 pages the boot is on the other foot. I am now awaiting an apology for being called a f**ker.
QuoteThese f**kers appear to be using and abusing the grant funding to gain a complete strangle-hold on rural communities. As usual, many of the towns involved are so small that I've never heard of them - yet the handful of GAA members there get to build a clubhouse for themselves.
Good Relations you are showing yourself up. My club in Kerry is the only sporting organisation in a very small rural parish so are they not entitled to some grant aid to help develop facilities that are the main social outlet of the area. And yes some Jackeen would probably not have heard of them as we dont even class as a town only a small village of 200 people but the funding is welcome and was applied for under the same process that every other recepitant applied for including a detailed business plan.
Why did Shamrock Rovers not receive any fiunding under the Sports Grants or did they even apply. Maybe they were just waiting for someone to come with a handout again.
We are still waiting for the proof of the 3000 Rovers fans...
Good relations........
"For what its worth Im not that PRAT hooperama or what ever his name was.But DubNut you come across as been even a bigger idiot than him"
And you say we come off as childish ::)
"I bet ya have never even been to a Rovers Game"
If you read my previous posts about Shamrock Rovers fans you will see that I have had the misfortune of going to a few games.
Worst shower of knackers I ever came across.
Kerry Mike apologies about the F***ers post.But just as Im about this post theres that idiot Dubnut calling Rovers fans Knackers and some of you have the cheek to tell me that Im not here to debate..What do ya call them idiots that are just here to slag off Rovers fans
Regards the 3000 fans thing I can assure you that Rovers get at least 3000 home fans to every game and if were playing Pats,Bohs or Shels you can expect another 1000 away fans.We are playing Drogheda at home on friday week and read the match report in the star on Saturday they always mention the great support Rovers recieve and often mention 2500-3000 fans.
OK 'Good' Relations. If we take you at your word that 'at least' 3000 HOME fans attend Shamrock Rovers games, why are they under reporting their gates? What's that all about?
Note to Good Relations: Thanks for the tip-off. I intend to report the discrepancies in attendance figures, that you so kindly brought to our intention, to the Revenue Commissioners. I'm sure they'll be interested in checking them out. I don't take kindly to being robbed (on the double) and certainly not by a serial tax-evading, asset-stripping, debt-avoiding, wage non-paying, supplier-diddling "club" that invites members of my organisation to "fcuk off and die".
I'm sure your colleagues will be delighted with this contribution of yours to the course of events. Thanks again.
Of course, if I'm wrong about the tax-evasion, it simply means you're a liar. Either way, you might reflect on how you and your ilk have pissed people off enough to have your "club" reported to the tax authorities, the next time you consider unfurling an abusive, obscene banner.
QuoteWhy did Shamrock Rovers not receive any fiunding under the Sports Grants or did they even apply. Maybe they were just waiting for someone to come with a handout again.
Simple really. You must OWN or have a long term lease on the property where the development work is to take place. A logical enough approach as you shouldn't plough money into somethnig that's immediate future is in doubt. At a stroke this explains why soccer clubs tend to not be successful in applying for these grants.
Good Relations you are talking through your deriére with regard to Shamrock Rovers attendances. The following is a list of average attendances for last season. This is compiled by a few regulars on a League of Ireland forum where they take the official attendance listed for each game and offset it against the 'guestimates' of home and away fans who were at the games. The contributors to these figures are reliable and the method employed is surprisingly accurate. Anyway, here it is:
Derry City 3.200
Cork City 2.941
Sligo Rovers 1.806
Drogheda United 1.751
Shelbourne 1.690
Bohemians 1.463
St. Patrick's Athletic 1.342
Bray Wanderers 1.027
Waterford United 915
Longford Town 702
UCD 546
Dublin City 488
Overall - 1.548
Galway United 1.148
Shamrock Rovers 1.089
Dundalk FC 1.078
Finn Harps 428
Athlone Town 421
Cobh Ramblers 368
Limerick 364
Kildare County 265
Monaghan United 204
Kilkenny City 122
Overall - 570
Further, I live just up the road from Tolka and I often hop down there if there is a game on. I have yet to see Shamrock Rovers have 3,000 at a home game. Wait, actually I would say the cup game against St Pats last year had close on 3,000.
I should add that attendances for Shamrock Rovers this season are averaging about the 2,000 mark but its early days yet.
the gaa published an extensive club manual last year and all clubs in the country must consult this before anything happens.
there are strict procedures getting these grants so as to ensure clubs aren't operating beyond their means. someone should send a few copies to the eircom leaugue lads.
as is the basic ethos of gaa also the volunteer is hugely important which is missing in the soccer. christ where are all the fans when shels really need them.
Quote from: Captain Scarlet on April 12, 2007, 06:52:22 PM
as is the basic ethos of gaa also the volunteer is hugely important which is missing in the soccer. christ where are all the fans when shels really need them.
In fairness, the vast majority of people involved in local soccer don't ever get a washer for their troubles, nor do they expect anything. The GAA doesn't have a monopoly on the volunteer ethos.
Re: Shamrock Rovers Ultras
« Reply #155 on: Today at 05:41:14 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Relations you are talking through your deriére with regard to Shamrock Rovers attendances. The following is a list of average attendances for last season. This is compiled by a few regulars on a League of Ireland forum where they take the official attendance listed for each game and offset it against the 'guestimates' of home and away fans who were at the games. The contributors to these figures are reliable and the method employed is surprisingly accurate. Anyway, here it is:
Derry City 3.200
Cork City 2.941
Sligo Rovers 1.806
Drogheda United 1.751
Shelbourne 1.690
Bohemians 1.463
St. Patrick's Athletic 1.342
Bray Wanderers 1.027
Waterford United 915
Longford Town 702
UCD 546
Dublin City 488
Overall - 1.548
Galway United 1.148
Shamrock Rovers 1.089
Dundalk FC 1.078
Finn Harps 428
Athlone Town 421
Cobh Ramblers 368
Limerick 364
Kildare County 265
Monaghan United 204
Kilkenny City 122
Overall - 570
Further, I live just up the road from Tolka and I often hop down there if there is a game on. I have yet to see Shamrock Rovers have 3,000 at a home game. Wait, actually I would say the cup game against St Pats last year had close on 3,000.
I should add that attendances for Shamrock Rovers this season are averaging about the 2,000 mark but its early days yet.
Base on both divisons combined, with a quick tot, that comes to 23,928 combined, that would be considered 1 very bad attendance for 1 GAA match.
Actually Mayo V Dublin in the league had about the same crowd, thats just 1 league match.
Why is soccer on the GAA Board, it should be on the other one
Quote from: Fishead_Sam on April 12, 2007, 07:30:34 PM
Base on both divisons combined, with a quick tot, that comes to 23,928 combined, that would be considered 1 very bad attendance for 1 GAA match.
Actually Mayo V Dublin in the league had about the same crowd, thats just 1 league match.
It's even worse than that. Given a full round of league matches, only half the teams would be at home. You'd fill the Basilica in Knock, but only just.
Good Relations:
"Lastly, just as an overall suggestion to get the GAA lads thinking...Supposed a soccer club asked to use a publicly funded GAA ground as there home pitch for a season..What would the reaction be. Suppose Cork city for example wanted to play in Pairc Ui Chaoimh in Cork..I know what the reaction would be down there."
to get the gaa lads thinking? you do get the irony here? once upon a time the fai had a stadium in cork called flower lodge (always liked the name), but they SOLD it to the gaa. its now called pairc ui rinn and no you cant come back in to play... unbelievable
All you can seem to do is slag Shamrock Rovers off.That doesn't say too much for you.The attendance for Rovers vs Pats last season was a sellout which amounts to about 6,500.And were not talking attendances as a whole here.I have no doubt that GAA matches have massive attendances compared to Soccer matches.The point was that if the soccer only stadium becomes a multi purpose stadium the capacity would be greatly reduced and this would not benefit Rovers as Id say once we get to Tallaght (and of that Im sure) Roverws average gate will be around 5-6 thousand.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 10:50:02 PM
All you can seem to do is slag Shamrock Rovers off.
Oh pur-leeze. You should see the stick OWC gets. This thread is about Shamrock Rovers Ultras. To not slag them would be a crime.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 10:50:02 PMId say once we get to Tallaght (and of that Im sure) Roverws average gate will be around 5-6 thousand.
(http://www.teachwithmovies.org/guides/field-of-dreams-DVDcover.jpg)
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 10:50:02 PM
All you can seem to do is slag Shamrock Rovers off.That doesn't say too much for you.The attendance for Rovers vs Pats last season was a sellout which amounts to about 6,500.And were not talking attendances as a whole here.I have no doubt that GAA matches have massive attendances compared to Soccer matches.The point was that if the soccer only stadium becomes a multi purpose stadium the capacity would be greatly reduced and this would not benefit Rovers as Id say once we get to Tallaght (and of that Im sure) Roverws average gate will be around 5-6 thousand.
I'd say to be honest any abuse is directed at you as much as at Rovers. I started out giving you every chance to state your case, but you have not come to the table with anything except your own opinion on matters. You believe that Rovers have 3000 people at home games, despite the fact that they are reporting otherwise to the Revenue. (Incidentally I've just scribbled down a similar note that Hardy suggested and dropped it off to revenue.ie as well) You believe that Tallaght stadium will be completed for Rovers sole benefit. You believe that ye'll have regular attendances of 5-6,000. You believe that the citizens of Tallaght want a soccer only stadium. You believe that GAA capital projects get grant aid approaching half the total cost on a regular basis.
Of course you have corroborated none of these things. You have given us no empirical data, no legal precedent or basis, no concrete examples, no numbers no details, NOTHING.
I'm not slagging Rovers - I almost feel sorry for them. One of these days the Government of the day won't be weak willed with more money than sense, and they'll realise that Rovers is a bottomless pit and that they'll always come back for more, and they'll just cut ye off.
That day will come, ye'll be stuck with a load of players who want paying, a product that very few want to pay to see and depending on ye're own members initiative and hard work to survive.
i.e. People like you.
Methinks your "Rovers will live forever" assertion can be added to your list of beliefs that I am very sceptical about.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 12, 2007, 12:06:24 AM
Quote from: deiseach on April 11, 2007, 11:58:31 PM
Quote from: snatter on April 11, 2007, 11:51:22 PM
Soccerfella
This is where I came in and where I'm leaving it for the night. Can we all leave the soccerfella / roversfella / whateveryourehavingyourselffella jibes out?
either argue your corner or dont.
when challenged to use their grey matter 90% of posters on this site revert to childish insult.
would you prefer if this was all a happy clappy agreeable brothers site? sad.
Just noticed this. Christ, I ask for people to be civil to you and you come over all offended! Sheesh.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 13, 2007, 01:48:55 AM
There are hundreds of municipal sport facilites across the 26.
We're talking
stadiums, compare like with like. Municipal golf courses can be used by everyone, including soccer and GAA clubs for fundraising and the like. Soccer and GAA clubs can use pools and municipal community centres with gyms etc for training.
Why should a shower of bankrupts get a free
stadium
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 13, 2007, 12:08:10 AM
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 10:50:02 PM
All you can seem to do is slag Shamrock Rovers off.That doesn't say too much for you.The attendance for Rovers vs Pats last season was a sellout which amounts to about 6,500.And were not talking attendances as a whole here.I have no doubt that GAA matches have massive attendances compared to Soccer matches.The point was that if the soccer only stadium becomes a multi purpose stadium the capacity would be greatly reduced and this would not benefit Rovers as Id say once we get to Tallaght (and of that Im sure) Roverws average gate will be around 5-6 thousand.
I'd say to be honest any abuse is directed at you as much as at Rovers. I started out giving you every chance to state your case, but you have not come to the table with anything except your own opinion on matters. You believe that Rovers have 3000 people at home games, despite the fact that they are reporting otherwise to the Revenue. (Incidentally I've just scribbled down a similar note that Hardy suggested and dropped it off to revenue.ie as well) You believe that Tallaght stadium will be completed for Rovers sole benefit. You believe that ye'll have regular attendances of 5-6,000. You believe that the citizens of Tallaght want a soccer only stadium. You believe that GAA capital projects get grant aid approaching half the total cost on a regular basis.
Of course you have corroborated none of these things. You have given us no empirical data, no legal precedent or basis, no concrete examples, no numbers no details, NOTHING.
I'm not slagging Rovers - I almost feel sorry for them. One of these days the Government of the day won't be weak willed with more money than sense, and they'll realise that Rovers is a bottomless pit and that they'll always come back for more, and they'll just cut ye off.
That day will come, ye'll be stuck with a load of players who want paying, a product that very few want to pay to see and depending on ye're own members initiative and hard work to survive.
i.e. People like you.
Methinks your "Rovers will live forever" assertion can be added to your list of beliefs that I am very sceptical about.
As ever, bang on the money LoneShark.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 13, 2007, 01:48:55 AM
even though TD have officially rejected the offer of gaelic games in tallaght when offered
a smokescreen to pretend that Gaelic games have been included in the 'municipal' 'stadium' project (aka - free ground and stadium for rovers)
Only kids up until the age of 13 can play meaningful games on this pitch
but its not even about that
as stephenite says
its about a stadium
if the council are building a free stadium, then all sports should be included when it is being called a municipal ground.
By trying to call it a municipal ground, they are attempting to pass off the building of a free rovers/soccer ground without the public noticing.
The public have noticed.
They (council/gov) would have been better off simply stating that this was a rovers/soccer ground and end their disingenuous shennanigans.
Obv if a rovers/soccer ground is built, then rugby, tennis, GAA, cricket will all have a precedent on their side to have the council/gov give them some land and then build a stadium/facility for them.
People dont really mind so much whether rovers get a perm home, most sports fans in the GAA would welcome it.
However people dont like being lied to- in this case its not a lie of rovers making, but you are lending yourselves to this lie by peddling the same tenuous 'municipality' - but are you actually duped by the council /gov too?
I doubt it, but I can understand your resoning for it - as if I were in your shoes, I'd want rovers to get a perm home and soon too!
But the council/gov have been caught out here and it is going to be very interesting to see the courts review.
In the long run, none of this is good for sport in Ireland and certainly not for people in the locality.
I'd personally like to see a seperate GAA facility being built in Rathcoole - obv fully paid for by the council/gov as the rovers stadium.
QuoteObv if a rovers/soccer ground is built, then rugby, tennis, GAA, cricket will all have a precedent on their side to have the council/gov give them some land and then build a stadium/facility for them.
Has the precedent not been set with Athlone Town ? They were given a free site from the council ..... albeit they claim they gave the council Mels Park in exchange despite Mels Park only ever having been leased. Then over the last number of years, they have been given almost 4 million in capital sports grants but fair play to them, they have contributed the proceeds of a few golf classics and gala dinners. And what do they contribute to the region - a shite team in the Ericom League First Division that attracts smaller crowds that the average junior club championship match and they also have a youth team. There was a bit of a 'Waynes World' about them in building this stadium - "If you build it, they will come" ..... hasn't proved to be the case yet.
On a pro rata basis, Athlone GAA club should be completely funded for a couple of 5,000 seater stands
Quote from: Good Relations on April 12, 2007, 04:56:32 PM
Kerry Mike apologies about the F***ers post.But just as Im about this post theres that idiot Dubnut calling Rovers fans Knackers and some of you have the cheek to tell me that Im not here to debate..What do ya call them idiots that are just here to slag off Rovers fans
Good relations, I have personal experience of Rovers fans at matches as I have posted about before and felt the Rovers fans I encountered were vile vicious knackers.
Thats my personal opinion from experience, if how the Rovers fans acted make me an idiot well I suppose I cant win.
And you might also note that my contributions to threads about Rovers make up a tiny proportion of my posts so I am not "just here to slag off Rovers fans" ::)
good relations, two questions will you please answer them if you can. 1) how many members in rovers 400 (not trying to be smart) 2)what is the ownership structure of the new rovers ie the benificial owners..
Quote from: dublinfella on April 13, 2007, 01:48:55 AM
There are hundreds of municipal sport facilites across the 26. Pools, gyms, golf, athletics, soccer and thats before we get to the council pitches a huge number of GAA clubs utilise. There has never been an objection from one sports body about another getting funding.
Think of the ridicule the tennis guys would get if they went to court to block the badminton lads getting funding....
Dublin15man is right. If TD win, the amount wont be the issue, it will be the concept of funding individual sports (even though TD have officially rejected the offer of gaelic games in tallaght when offered) unless rivals are taken into account. Who will lose in that visa?
The simple reality is the GAA havent been rejected on principle from the ground. They have been rejected on practical grounds. They dont fit.
How does the TD position fit in to your generally correct description of how GAA clubs go about their business? They havent planned, costed or applied for f**k all. No-one iin the club is chipping at anything other than the associations coffers through funding barristers, and we have yet to recieve any explaination of who is funding them in court.
With respect, you are defending TD for being even more opportunist and parasitic than Rovers. Thomas Davis are an affront to the name of a patriot in this case.
(1) There are indeed hundreds of municipal facilities across the country. Facilities that are open to the public, and can be used by anyone who wishes to take part in the sport(s) for which it is intended. Now maybe I'm wrong, but if I, a useless runabout, wishes to play soccer in this new stadium, how do I go about it? Can I book a regular Friday night at 7pm slot for me and my mates? Because I can with every other municipal facility I know of.
(2) FOR. THE. LAST. TIME!!!! Thomas Davis are not objecting to Rovers getting funding. Thomas Davis are objecting to the ministerial interference that forced the SDCC to reverse their earlier decision. I do not like the idea of soccer clubs in this country with their track record being funded, but as a citizen in a democracy I have to take the good with the bad. Some public funds will be spent in ways that I approve, and some won't. However as a citizen of a democracy I have a right to live in something better than a banana republic where a minister from Kerry can stick his nose in to an affair not of his direct concern. Perhaps he was correct to do so, perhaps - but the initial judgement from the courts suggests the question at least needs to be asked. I wholeheartedly support TD in their efforts to keep the Kerry gombeen in check and within the law.
(3) As for the GAA planning and costing this setup, you may remember the Dublin County Board offered to develop the stadium back when Rovers were in "difficulty" to put it mildly. This was turned down. Why should they, or TD, put any funding in now when Rovers aren't?
(4) Your point about whether they fit or not remains uncertain. You, Shamrock Rovers, and the minister, maintain that architects reports do not allow for a GAA pitch and anything more than 2000 capacity. Thomas Davis have an architect's report saying otherwise. I don't know you, but I know that John O'Donoghue and Shamrock Rovers both have a track record of not being completely honest, so my initial reaction is to believe TD - but it probably requires independent corroboration.
(5) I don't know exactly who is funding TD's case, but I know this. It's not the taxpayer, so what issue is it of yours, or mine for that matter? If either the club members or some benefactor thought that this was a useful use of the club's funds, funds that were got the hard way, something a soccer club would know nothing about, then who are we to argue?
(6) Finally - where do you stand on the attendances issue? Rovers are being reported as having an average attendance of just over 1,000. Our new poster Good Relations believes it to be 3,000. Either your new, honest club is under-reporting attendances, or our new buddy is talking through his hole. Care to enlighten the rest of us on which it is?
Lone Shark,
I hope you mentioned in your email to the revenue about the salary paid to inter county managers, because I just know that all that money is declared!
You could also mention the proposed "expenses" that the GAA and GPA are asking the govt. to pay.
Quote from: dublin15man on April 13, 2007, 02:11:49 PM
Lone Shark,
I hope you mentioned in your email to the revenue about the salary paid to inter county managers, because I just know that all that money is declared!
You could also mention the proposed “expenses” that the GAA and GPA are asking the govt. to pay.
Every county will account for management expenses in its financial report. It is clear and transparent. It is up to the individual then like in all businesses to declare earnings.
What is not happening, is that the GAA as an organisation arent declaring that two thrids of the paying spectators were not present.
As for your second point, you want the revenue commission to investigate a proposal the government may finance themselves ??? ::)
You're not the sharpest tool in the Shamrock Rovers arsenal !!
Quote from: dublin15man on April 13, 2007, 02:11:49 PM
You could also mention the proposed "expenses" that the GAA and GPA are asking the govt. to pay.
Eh what??? Report to the government that the government is giving grants to whomever ....?
It appears the average "Ultra" IQ level is somewhat .... infra?
Quote from: dublin15man on April 13, 2007, 02:11:49 PM
Lone Shark,
I hope you mentioned in your email to the revenue about the salary paid to inter county managers, because I just know that all that money is declared!
You could also mention the proposed "expenses" that the GAA and GPA are asking the govt. to pay.
I won't dignify the second remark with a response. Suffice it to say that I'm sure the relevant authorities are aware of this "under the table" payment players will be receiving from the Government. ::)
As for money paid to intercounty managers, if you were on this board for any length of time you would be aware that most posters here would be delighted if the practice could be eliminated. It's a blight on our association, and it needs stopping since it was one of the first steps towards pay for play. If you possibly have any concrete evidence of this practice I'd be delighted to report it. However most of the arguments you and Good Relations are putting forward are a bit short on that vital ingredient.
But yet you are prepared to petition the revenue to investigate rovers based upon the discrepancies between GR's boastings and someone else estimate of attendance's from foot.ie. Concrete evidence indeed.
i thought Shamrock rovers went out of business a couple of years ago. Who is trying to bring them back into business. Have they shares? Will Rovers own or simplY have use of the ground? It would be a valuable plot to own.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 13, 2007, 02:53:17 PM
As for money paid to intercounty managers, if you were on this board for any length of time you would be aware that most posters here would be delighted if the practice could be eliminated. It's a blight on our association, and it needs stopping since it was one of the first steps towards pay for play. If you possibly have any concrete evidence of this practice I'd be delighted to report it. However most of the arguments you and Good Relations are putting forward are a bit short on that vital ingredient.
In the series of straw men that have been lined up in this debate, this one is the child of the Wicker Man and the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. As you say, most of us would be only too thrilled if the Revenue threw the book at county boards for paying managers.
Quote from: dublin15man on April 13, 2007, 03:58:08 PM
But yet you are prepared to petition the revenue to investigate rovers based upon the discrepancies between GR's boastings and someone else estimate of attendance’s from foot.ie. Concrete evidence indeed.
Incorrect. I am prepared to petition the revenue to investigate Rovers on the strength that last year Galway United reported at their official press conference that they topped division 1 attendances with 1100 average home attendance, as opposed to 1081 for Shamrock Rovers. Now allowing for a home season of 18 games, and even assuming everyone paid the full price admission of €15, that's total admission revenue for the year of €290,000, a figure which I would imagine is very generous when reduced prices for kids etc is taken into account. Today PP announced sponsorship of St. Pat's, an established Premier Division side that's top of the table for €100k a year. If we generously assume that Rovers got €70,000 from sponsors last year on that basis, which is large bearing in mind they weren't going to appear anywhere being in the first division, that's overall revenue in the vicinity of €360,000. I'm going to be ultra generous here and round this up to €420,000 allowing for jersey sales, programme sales and other minor revenue sources.
Now for more official data, all taken from a Rovers Press Release.
Last year Shamrock Rovers paid €102,000 in tax. Most GAA intercounty teams spent at least €50,000 on team preparation, and that's for a lot less games than Rovers played. If we ignore every other expense that the team could incur, or practical issues like public liability insurance, because I can't be arsed to think of them right now, that leaves just under €270,000. Now according again to the same press release, Rovers "employ upwards of 30 people".
So in other words each of these people get paid a salary of €9,000 each???? Something ain't right.
And it was on this basis that I felt an email to the revenue was worth a shot. Something right ain't going on. Perhaps it's just that Rovers don't employ any of these people at all, and they're just claiming a contract cleaner who comes in once a week as an employee, but it's worth asking.
See? Facts, figures, sourced from real sources, rather than just beliefs. Ye should try them out some time.
the only relevant facts you have are the average attendance at Galway Utd home games for last season and the sum for Paddy Powers sponsorship of St Pats for this year. The rest is just one assumption after another.
You don't take into account that after they got relegated in 2004 they had to let go nearly all of their players on professional contracts. Also they were only kept running by the contributions from the fans. Which all bears no relationship whtsoever with Galway Utd.
Anyway I can't excatly see the revenue setting up another tribunal on the basis of your complaint.
I don't expect a tribunal either, and I did not make a complaint - I merely pointed out some facts that appear incongruous. However, while some are assumptions, some are not. The 1081 average attendance for Rovers is an official FAI sourced number, available from Eircom LOI (I took the liberty of abusing my journalistic position to put in a call). The only reason I cited Galway utd was because that press conference is google-able and thus you could check it out for yourself - backing up the eveidence, y'see? The 102,000 paid in tax and the 30 employees are figures from a Shamrock Rovers press release, which you can read on their own website. If Shamrock Rovers are putting bad assumptions into their press releases something is grievously wrong. Perhaps they did have to let all their staff go, but they themselves are claiming they have thirty staff now, forming a big part of their claim to be making a contribution to the state and community. If these are all let go, then the official letter submitted to the Irish Times on behalf of the club looks rather foolish.
As for the other numbers, every single one of them is a very kind estimate to Rovers, and yet there is a huge shortfall. These numbers do not add up. If you're able to point out where the €200k is that is gone missing from my numbers, I will take my hat off to you and thank you for the first factual contribution you've made to this debate. If you're not, I'll merely remark to myself that it is striking how Rovers budget seems short by exactly the amount they would be making if their attendances were in fact over 2000 per match, despite the fact that they are reporting half that.
big craic on the thread today lads!!! i definitely think loneshark should be brought in to present TD's argument!
by the way, i see we got dublinfella back today but havent seen any sign of 'good vibrations' - any coincidence? or has good vibrations finally saw sense?
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 13, 2007, 11:21:24 AM
(1) There are indeed hundreds of municipal facilities across the country. Facilities that are open to the public, and can be used by anyone who wishes to take part in the sport(s) for which it is intended. Now maybe I'm wrong, but if I, a useless runabout, wishes to play soccer in this new stadium, how do I go about it? Can I book a regular Friday night at 7pm slot for me and my mates? Because I can with every other municipal facility I know of.
i agree 100%. but the stadium is designed and intended for soccer.
as far as im aware, yes, you will be able to book the ground in a similar way to a municpal golf couse, once the members are fixed up its first come first served. and im sure they would welcome bodies in the club house after.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 13, 2007, 11:21:24 AM
(2) FOR. THE. LAST. TIME!!!! Thomas Davis are not objecting to Rovers getting funding. Thomas Davis are objecting to the ministerial interference that forced the SDCC to reverse their earlier decision. I do not like the idea of soccer clubs in this country with their track record being funded, but as a citizen in a democracy I have to take the good with the bad. Some public funds will be spent in ways that I approve, and some won't. However as a citizen of a democracy I have a right to live in something better than a banana republic where a minister from Kerry can stick his nose in to an affair not of his direct concern. Perhaps he was correct to do so, perhaps - but the initial judgement from the courts suggests the question at least needs to be asked. I wholeheartedly support TD in their efforts to keep the Kerry gombeen in check and within the law.
not of his direct concern? despite the fact he is responsible for the funding? thats poor. Again, a GAA club is entitled to 'interfere', but the minister for sport cannot. come on LS, thats bollocks and you know it. whats next, the minister for health not being allowed an input into how hospitals are run? he has an obligation to deliver value for money, and he feels that replanning, rebuilding and having 2,000 seats is in his opinion not acceptible for the money involved. shite talk LS and clutching at straws.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 13, 2007, 11:21:24 AM(3) As for the GAA planning and costing this setup, you may remember the Dublin County Board offered to develop the stadium back when Rovers were in "difficulty" to put it mildly. This was turned down. Why should they, or TD, put any funding in now when Rovers aren't?
I offered to ride Angelina Jolie. Doenst mean it was going to happen.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 13, 2007, 11:21:24 AM(4) Your point about whether they fit or not remains uncertain. You, Shamrock Rovers, and the minister, maintain that architects reports do not allow for a GAA pitch and anything more than 2000 capacity. Thomas Davis have an architect's report saying otherwise. I don't know you, but I know that John O'Donoghue and Shamrock Rovers both have a track record of not being completely honest, so my initial reaction is to believe TD - but it probably requires independent corroboration.
TD have failed to produce this report. They or their 'architects' didnt have access to the site. If they could produce this report they would be in, no arguments from either the councilm the minister or Rovers. But they havent. I smell rodent.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 13, 2007, 11:21:24 AM(5) I don't know exactly who is funding TD's case, but I know this. It's not the taxpayer, so what issue is it of yours, or mine for that matter? If either the club members or some benefactor thought that this was a useful use of the club's funds, funds that were got the hard way, something a soccer club would know nothing about, then who are we to argue?
As a member of the association who fundraises, Im entitled to ask if millions of GAA money is being used on this. If TD actually needed 2,000 seats, the cost of the case would pay for it. Rovers and the SDCC have declared how they are paying their bills, TD have refused. I can categorically assure you TD members never got a vote on whether to take the case, let alone asked if they were willing to fund it.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 13, 2007, 11:21:24 AM(6) Finally - where do you stand on the attendances issue? Rovers are being reported as having an average attendance of just over 1,000. Our new poster Good Relations believes it to be 3,000. Either your new, honest club is under-reporting attendances, or our new buddy is talking through his hole. Care to enlighten the rest of us on which it is?
[/quote
I have less than no opinion on Rovers crowds, but, the figures quoted were from eyewitness guesstimates from foot.ie. Rovers arent being reported as saying a thing. Their league crowds in the first with no away fans were probably averaging the 1,000 mark, their cup games against pats and bohs were closer to 7,000. Whats the Dubs average crowd? 8,000 or 65,000?
Rovers cant ask who is funding TD's case but you are entitled to imply they are fiddling with absolutly no access or insight into their figures? Just when you thought it couldnt get any more surreal....
dublinfella as good relations has yet to get back maybe you can answer these two questions if you can. 1) how many members in rovers 400 (not trying to be smart) 2)what is the ownership structure of the new rovers ie the benificial owners..
Irish Soccer
Dublin City - Bust
Shelbourne - Bust & demoted
Dundalk - Nearly Bust a few years back
Sligo Rovers - About to go Bust
Shamrock Rovers - Just back up from demotion, sold their ground 25 years ago now have the begging bowl out for money
Republin of Ireland are worse than Northern Ireland (or Northern Healy Ireland to be more accurate)
Landsown Road - Squatting there for 30 years, first they try and take it off the IRFU, now they want to get to get their hands over GAA HQ
New McHale Park will be close in size to New Lansdown
Some facts -for the umpeenth time- SD CoCouncil paid €1.5mil to get their own land back from Shambeggars. They also have to pay the Builder and various architects/engineers/Q Surveyors outstanding debts left by the Shambeggars.
At this point app €3.4m or €3.7 m of public monies has been spent on the ruin in Tallaght.- estimated at over €600,000.
Then there's the whole question -even if the Council get the go ahead to build a soccer only stadium- of public procurement. The Council can hardly just appoint the same builder that Shambeggars had without going to tender.That is against Irish and EU Law.
Why are the Shams backers spreading so many pseudo fictional comments about this whole sad sorry saga which could be sorted out in 5 minutes around a table.l
Quote from: Rossfan on April 14, 2007, 07:39:42 PM
Some facts -for the umpeenth time- SD CoCouncil paid €1.5mil to get their own land back from Shambeggars. They also have to pay the Builder and various architects/engineers/Q Surveyors outstanding debts left by the Shambeggars.
At this point app €3.4m or €3.7 m of public monies has been spent on the ruin in Tallaght.- estimated at over €600,000.
Then there's the whole question -even if the Council get the go ahead to build a soccer only stadium- of public procurement. The Council can hardly just appoint the same builder that Shambeggars had without going to tender.That is against Irish and EU Law.
Why are the Shams backers spreading so many pseudo fictional comments about this whole sad sorry saga which could be sorted out in 5 minutes around a table.l
What are you talking about? Why would they need to re-tender for the same project? The council have the go ahead its a section 8 completion of a facility that has pp already, the delay is because TD injunted. And rovers are spreading fiction? That post makes no sense.
Any other Dubs see the 11 page letter TD gave to their members? Vicious stuff. They have constituted a board to fight the Govt on 'all fronts' and they announced that local FF TD Conor Lenihan has been barred from their clubhouse for refusing to side with them. :o
Kennedy has finally lost the plot and his temper. They must be howling with laughter on the Rovers forum. Nasty stuff, Ill try and get it scanned.
dublinfella, any chance you answering my two questions?
Quote from: magickingdom on April 16, 2007, 11:39:50 PM
dublinfella, any chance you answering my two questions?
1: i believe about 500 and 2: members owned not for profit club, any excess at the end of the year is put into the youth side. i dont know what you mean by beneficial owners?
Quotethey announced that local FF TD Conor Lenihan has been barred from their clubhouse for refusing to side with them
They must mean business. The legal fees AND this massive drop in bar profits!
Dublinfella,
"1: i believe about 500 and 2: members owned not for profit club, any excess at the end of the year is put into the youth side. i dont know what you mean by beneficial owners?
foxrock golf club is a members owned not for profit club, its for sale with the members getting a few hundred grand each and their moving on. this cannot happen with gaa clubs, even if they sell their ground the money goes into the gaa. thats why benifical ownership is important (ie who eventually gets the benifit of an asset). public money should NEVER go into these organisations. their community organisations in name only
Classy bunch!
Suppose the arent "the Ultras" ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzys_0gunL4
Quote from: dubnut on April 17, 2007, 07:15:21 PM
Classy bunch!
Suppose the arent "the Ultras" ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzys_0gunL4
will we put up a link to the game in tyrone at the weekend???
glass houses etc
I admired your persistance for a long time dublinfella but really your very far off the mark this time. Your comparing an incident of rioting and street violence with an abandoned game where there was 2/3 punches thrown?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 17, 2007, 11:53:33 PM
will we put up a link to the game in tyrone at the weekend???
glass houses etc
Yes please, post that link here and we'll make some comparisons.
Quote from: oakleafgael on April 17, 2007, 11:58:11 PM
I admired your persistance for a long time dublinfella but really your very far off the mark this time. Your comparing an incident of rioting and street violence with an abandoned game where there was 2/3 punches thrown?
Im just saying that calling soccer fans 'chavs' and 'knackers' for acting the bollocks is a bit rich from some of the same people who defend a refferee having to run in fear of a pitch.
Anyone Rovers or Bohs identify in that video will get a lifetime ban and their details passed onto the cops. Will the same action be taken by the clubs in Tyrone? Will it f**k.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 18, 2007, 01:51:01 AM
Quote from: oakleafgael on April 17, 2007, 11:58:11 PM
I admired your persistance for a long time dublinfella but really your very far off the mark this time. Your comparing an incident of rioting and street violence with an abandoned game where there was 2/3 punches thrown?
Im just saying that calling soccer fans 'chavs' and 'knackers' for acting the bollocks is a bit rich from some of the same people who defend a refferee having to run in fear of a pitch.
Anyone Rovers or Bohs identify in that video will get a lifetime ban and their details passed onto the cops. Will the same action be taken by the clubs in Tyrone? Will it f**k.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Dudlinfella, your becoming a royal pain in the ass. What do you know about tyrone club football ? If you have a problem with it, im sure we could organise to have you share your wealth of information.
Your depriving some village of their idiot !!
Roche criticises Thomas Davis letter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINALLY...
Irish Times 18.04.07
Roche criticises Thomas Davis letter
Emmet Malone Soccer correspondent
Wed, Apr 18, 2007
Tallaght Stadium controversy:Shamrock Rovers chairman Jonathan Roche has described as "a disgrace" a letter sent earlier this month by his counterpart at Thomas Davis, Christopher O'Donnell, to members of the GAA club in relation to the issue of access to the stadium proposed for Tallaght.
Roche also says that an item of supporting documentation, which accompanied the letter, is "riddled with factual inaccuracies".
In the letter, dated April 7th, O'Donnell encourages members to make an election issue of the club's fight to win access to the stadium and provides detailed instruction to members on how the issue should be raised with politicians during the forthcoming election campaign.
He also suggests they should not support local Fianna Fail TD Conor Lenihan, a Minister for State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, because he has recently signalled to club officials his support for the line taken by John O'Donoghue, that Government funding for the project be conditional upon it being used solely for soccer. O'Donnell says the politician has been informed he will not be welcome at the club until the GAA is accommodated at the stadium.
Lenihan said last night that while he was aware of the letter's content he found it both "surprising and ironic" that he first heard about it last Thursday night while attending a charity fund-raiser at the club. "I was being treated to drinks by senior members of the club and talking to a couple of former players who were special guests at the function when somebody approached me solemnly and presented me with a copy of the letter. Given how welcome I was made to feel on the night, I haven't really bothered to pursue the matter."
While O'Donnell clearly suggests to members in the letter that Thomas Davis and GAA other clubs in the area have been warned their stand on Tallaght might preclude them from receiving funds under the Government's Sports Capital Programme, Lenihan points out that one reason he believes he was made so welcome at the function was the news the club had just been allocated some €200,000 under the scheme.
"There seems to have been a suggestion that they couldn't benefit from Sports Capital Programme funding but as a result of the type of representations made by me, amongst others, the club received €200,000 only last week and I have been instrumental in obtaining over €600,000 in funding for Thomas Davis over the last few years. It is a matter of deep regret that we should have such a deep division between supporters of two sporting codes, and people on both sides of this debate have gone too far in what they have said at times. It would still be a concern of mine, however, that if Thomas Davis are successful in having the stadium opened then it may be the case that other clubs will take cases to have facilities already funded and built opened up too."
Within Rovers, meanwhile, there is disquiet over what the club's officials see as the latest attempt to undermine their attempts to get into the Tallaght development. In O'Donnell's letter he states on a number of occasions that Thomas Davis did not want to do this and that they did not intend either to dispute their neighbour's status as "anchor tenants" at the stadium.
However, Rovers' club secretary Noel Byrne points to a letter written in September 2005 by another Thomas Davis official, David Kennedy, to Dublin County Board chief executive John Costello as evidence that the club's public position cannot be readily taken at face value. In that letter Kennedy notes that in communications with South Dublin County Council, which is to complete the stadium, Thomas Davis have accepted the facility will also be used for soccer. "Tactically," he writes, "I think that has to be right for now. I'm confident (however) that in any bout with Rovers," he concludes, "that the GAA will be the last man standing."
Byrne believes the lack of any attempt by Thomas Davis to build trust between the two clubs in the aftermath of that letter becoming public calls into doubt anything that the GAA outfit might say now. "We continue to take advice on the situation while watching with amazement the activities of Thomas Davis and nothing they have done to date would suggest to us that they want to forge a long-term relationship with Shamrock Rovers" he says.
On this occasion a number of documents are attached to the letter including a circular from Costello to members of the GAA's central council in which a brief synopsis of the Tallaght stadium story to date is provided. Roche says this document is "riddled with factual inaccuracies" and that the overall tone of the new letter is similar to Kennedy's.
"They claim no Shamrock Rovers money went into what has been built so far but that's simply not true," he says. "The 400 club alone provided over €100,000 for the payment of professional fees and other items related to the project.
"Now, setting all of that aside, I have no problem whatsoever with junior gaelic or hockey or any other type of sporting contest being staged at this stadium as long as it doesn't require changes (an enlarged pitch) that substantially impact on and delay its delivery but that is precisely what Thomas Davis appear determined to achieve."
Enough Said...
"I have no problem whatsoever with junior gaelic or hockey or any other type of sporting contest being staged at this stadium as long as it doesn't require changes (an enlarged pitch)"
I play junior football and have always played on the same size pitch as senior and intermediate football.
Does this guy have a clue???
Now if ya had a clue Dubnut you would understand that he means Under Age GAA.Are you telling me that under 8,9,10 and so on play on full size senior GAA pitches. I dont think so ::) ::) ::)
its no surprise scumrock rovers think that its their ground
most of their ultras are on the dole,on training schemes or working on a low wage flipping burgers
a new ground in tallaght would be a bonus to the dole cheques they get
"Are you telling me that under 8,9,10 and so on play on full size senior GAA pitches"
Eh, no thats not at all what I'm saying! :o
Good vibrations he said junior GAA, which is a lower standard of adult GAA.
If he meant underage he should have said underage or juvenile.
So dont be accusing me of not having a clue for pointing out someones mistake ! :-[
Ya know quite well what he meant so dont be trying to justify your ridiculous comment.And again slagging off Rovers fans shows the mentality of some of the people that post here to be very low.I bet ya dont know many Rovers fans at all.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 18, 2007, 03:48:32 PM
Ya know quite well what he meant so dont be trying to justify your ridiculous comment.And again slagging off Rovers fans shows the mentality of some of the people that post here to be very low.I bet ya dont know many Rovers fans at all.
It wasnt a ridiculous comment it was FACT!
And re slaggin off Rovers fans, I only ever speak of Rovers fans I have personally witnessed.
If they behave badly how does that make my mentality "very low" ?? :-\
Am I dependant on the behaviour of others around me to define my mentality??
Doesnt add up Good Vibrations.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 18, 2007, 01:20:48 PM
"They claim no Shamrock Rovers money went into what has been built so far but that's simply not true," he says. "The 400 club alone provided over €100,000 for the payment of professional fees and other items related to the project.
A whole 100k ??? forgive me if im not blown away by their right to dictate what size or work should be done on this project if thats all they've contributed.
He's open to hockey, that's awfully good of him, there was me thinking he didnt own the place. Serious ownership issues with this lot.
Good relations:
"The 400 club alone provided..."
good relations, dublinfella thinks theres about 500 members in the 400 club, the papers a while back said there was about 80. anyway you might know? it would be important to know just how many people now own rovers...
good vibrations/roversfella, when are you both just going to come out and admit that shamrock rovers are a pack of beggars who want taxpayers to build them a stadium because they cant build one of their own. its that simple. it is for this reason that the tallaght gaa community feel aggrieved and have take action. they dont mind rovers using the stadium, they just want to be able to access it also. can one of you please tell me what the problem is here.
Yeah it does make your mentality low if you judge 5 or so thousand people (that attend matches anyway,Im sure there tens of thousands more) on meeting just a very small minority.Your statement was ridiculous regarding the junior GAA. Stop being a prat.
QuoteYeah it does make your mentality low if you judge 5 or so thousand people (that attend matches anyway,Im sure there tens of thousands more) on meeting just a very small minority
LAUGHING MY ARSE OFF!
The last figure I seen was 728 members in the 400 club.They initially said that they needed four hundred members...Hence the name.And to answer the question regarding begging,If you think Rovers are beggers what does it make every GAA club that got a grant...
Quote from: Good Relations on April 18, 2007, 04:46:37 PM
Yeah it does make your mentality low if you judge 5 or so thousand people (that attend matches anyway,Im sure there tens of thousands more) on meeting just a very small minority.Your statement was ridiculous regarding the junior GAA. Stop being a prat.
Good Vibrations I have pointed this out very clearly before, my comments based on Rovers fans are based on the ones I have encountered and do not refer to all Rovers fans.
How many times do I need to repeat that to get it into your head??
At least accept that there are bad ones, after my earlier comments about them (again based on being at a game in the middle of them) you suggested I was never at a Rovers game ::)
My comment re the "junior" football was merely pointing out a factual error by the Rovers guys. How is that ridiculous????
Thats twice now you have said its ridiculous, so explain how?
Was there anything factually incorrect with my statement?
p.s. I'm sure there arent tens of thousands more :D :D :D :D
QuoteIf you think Rovers are beggers what does it make every GAA club that got a grant...
This is getting very tiring. If you had the slightest clue about applying for grants you would realise that you must supply matching funding in order to qualify. This is different to getting a free stadium. Capiche?
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 18, 2007, 04:52:20 PM
QuoteYeah it does make your mentality low if you judge 5 or so thousand people (that attend matches anyway,Im sure there tens of thousands more) on meeting just a very small minority
LAUGHING MY ARSE OFF!
They're breeding like rabbits by the sounds of things, 5 thusand and rising fast! ;D ;D ;D
good vibrations, getting a grant is not begging. all sporting organisations are entitled to grants, it is up to the government to decide which applicants get them. on the other hand we have shamrock rovers whos idea of a 'grant' is taxpayers money being used to buy a site and build them a stadium for them and them only to use. i therefore dont accept your answer.
p.s. if what shamrock rovers are after is a 'grant' in your opinion, could you tell me how to go about applying for one, our club could do with a new ground free of charge.
Quote from: 15 Johnny Blues on April 04, 2007, 05:21:26 PM
http://www.srfcultras.net/index01.html
Check this out - saw story in Evening Herald today, has to be seen to be believed! Maybe when the Joy is closed it could be redeveloped to house Rovers?
go back to bogger land the lot of you and let dublin rule itself
Quote from: willo on April 18, 2007, 05:46:49 PM
Quote from: 15 Johnny Blues on April 04, 2007, 05:21:26 PM
http://www.srfcultras.net/index01.html
Check this out - saw story in Evening Herald today, has to be seen to be believed! Maybe when the Joy is closed it could be redeveloped to house Rovers?
go back to bogger land the lot of you and let dublin rule itself
good man willo, that's very clever stuff.
First of all Rovers are not looking for sole rights to the stadium and have clearly said that all under age GAA matches are welcome on the pitch but to extend the dimensions of the pitch thus reducing its capacity size is not feasible.And in reply to the 10s of thousands of fans I would say comfortably Rovers have that and that about 5,000 attend matches.Please make sure you read my previous messages on this forum before you have something sarcastic to say.
My comment re the "junior" football was merely pointing out a factual error by the Rovers guys.
Id say you knew quite well what Johnathan Roche (Rovers Chairman) was on about when he said that all "junior" matches were welcome to use the stadium and by saying junior he meant under age.So please stop picking little ridiculous things that are irrevelant to the debate.
;D ;D
Quote from: Good Relations on April 18, 2007, 06:55:53 PM
First of all Rovers are not looking for sole rights to the stadium and have clearly said that all under age GAA matches are welcome on the pitch.
If the first part of this sentence is true, then it's not for Rovers to say who can and can't use the pitch, is it?
Quote from: tayto on April 18, 2007, 05:50:29 PM
Quote from: willo on April 18, 2007, 05:46:49 PM
Quote from: 15 Johnny Blues on April 04, 2007, 05:21:26 PM
http://www.srfcultras.net/index01.html
Check this out - saw story in Evening Herald today, has to be seen to be believed! Maybe when the Joy is closed it could be redeveloped to house Rovers?
go back to bogger land the lot of you and let dublin rule itself
good man willo, that's very clever stuff.
should that not be taytos
Quote from: deiseach on April 18, 2007, 07:06:18 PM
Quote from: Good Relations on April 18, 2007, 06:55:53 PM
First of all Rovers are not looking for sole rights to the stadium and have clearly said that all under age GAA matches are welcome on the pitch.
If the first part of this sentence is true, then it's not for Rovers to say who can and can't use the pitch, is it?
And is the crux of the matter i feel.
its not for rovers to say wh ohas use and when, if they want it for forty days a year, SDCC decide who and when get it the other days.
undoubtedly, it would better suit the FAI to help fund the project than spend money in the courts. I think GAA people would undoubtedly feel a lot better if there was more funding from the them.
Because lets face it, if Davis win the case, it will not be built by the SDCC.
I feel SDCC and rovers problems lie with the delaysin planning that will be brought about by the redesign of the ground.
One I feel some sympathy with.
On the other hand, has anyone thought what is going to happen with the sharing of season (GAA march to oct/LOI march to oct)
The seasons would clash badly. Someone mentioned on res dubs very pertantly that tallaght would be a great base for a southside dublin team when the split (and it will) occurs.
A whole sorry mess, with good arguments on both sides.
I think the last point is interesting as I feel if TD (and I seriously doubt if they will) win the day and wreck all hopes and dreams of Rovers fans then John O Donohue as stated wont put up funding and SDCC will back out of the Stadium all together.Seen as the GAA already have there 25 or so acres in Rathcoole and have been promised heavy funding by the government for a new stadium the whole stadium not being built in Tallaght would not effect the GAA in the slightest
Goodrelations all you have to do is leave us in charge of building it, when the GAA say they will build somthing they get it done fast and well. We have been putting up stadiums and replacing them with bigger and better with GAA Ingenuity for decades. Promise you leave the GAA in charge and it will be the best facilities and built fast, alot faster than the FAI or any soccer organisation even if we have to go back to planning we would get it done better and quicker than anyone fromn the useless FAI or IRFU.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 18, 2007, 06:55:53 PM
Id say you knew quite well what Johnathan Roche (Rovers Chairman) was on about when he said that all "junior" matches were welcome to use the stadium and by saying junior he meant under age.So please stop picking little ridiculous things that are irrevelant to the debate.
;D ;D
I was pointing out how he misworded it. I presumed he knew what he wanted to say but didnt know how to string it together.
Worth mentioning, even if tongue in cheek to highlight how little he understands about the GAA. You would say its ridiculous as I pointed out your mans error.
I would say its important his ignorance be highlighted.
Incidentally I like how you point out that its irrelevant to the debate when you have been shiting on about the stadium in Tallaght again on a thread to discuss the Rovers Ultras.
Theres already threads about tallaght!!
This is about kn**ker fans (from my personal experience, not relating to all Rovers fans, terms and conditions apply :o)
"I have no problem whatsoever with junior gaelic or hockey or any other type of sporting contest being staged at this stadium as long as it doesn't require changes (an enlarged pitch)"
I play junior football and have always played on the same size pitch as senior and intermediate football.
Does this guy have a clue???
That statement sounds like your being stupid.C,mon you know quite well what he was on about and just tried to twist it around and in doing so made yourself look like a twat.. ;D ;D
With regards to the this being a forum about the Ultras if you look back to page 1 of the forum and about 5 or 6 messages down the topic of the stadium comes up and since then there has been little or no messages regarding the Ultras. I didn't enter the debate till about the third or forth page when all the talk was about the stadium. Again your talking crap.
Good relations, will you please re-read my posts, I KNOW WHAT HE MEANT, I was just correcting his wording error.
Re the Ultras topic, thats the thread topic, you cant decide when its ok to stray from the topic and when its not ::)
Give it up for f**k sake, lets not turn this into a personal squabble 8)
Give it up for f**k sake, lets not turn this into a personal squabble
For once I think your talking sense. Lets beg to differ. ;D ;D
Quote from: Fishead_Sam on April 18, 2007, 08:07:36 PM
Goodrelations all you have to do is leave us in charge of building it, when the GAA say they will build somthing they get it done fast and well. We have been putting up stadiums and replacing them with bigger and better with GAA Ingenuity for decades. Promise you leave the GAA in charge and it will be the best facilities and built fast, alot faster than the FAI or any soccer organisation even if we have to go back to planning we would get it done better and quicker than anyone fromn the useless FAI or IRFU.
the stadium would have been completed last year but for the intervention of the GAA.
methinks you have missed the point somewhat here.....
Quote from: behind the wire on April 18, 2007, 04:41:19 PM
good vibrations/roversfella, when are you both just going to come out and admit that shamrock rovers are a pack of beggars who want taxpayers to build them a stadium because they cant build one of their own. its that simple. it is for this reason that the tallaght gaa community feel aggrieved and have take action. they dont mind rovers using the stadium, they just want to be able to access it also. can one of you please tell me what the problem is here.
a GAA pitch doesnt fit.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 18, 2007, 06:55:53 PM
Id say you knew quite well what Johnathan Roche (Rovers Chairman) was on about when he said that all "junior" matches were welcome to use the stadium and by saying junior he meant under age.So please stop picking little ridiculous things that are irrevelant to the debate.
;D ;D
while we're being pedantic, it wasn't actually Jonathan Roche who said that. It was someone called Noel Byrne, who is secretary of Shamrock Rovers. But sure why let facts get in the way of a good old pedantic rant.
And if Byrne didn't mean 'junior' games, why the hell did he say 'junior' games? How do you know what he meant or didn't mean, unless of course its you, which obviously it isn't as you didn't even know who had made the comment.
Jaysus, even in soccer, 'Junior' doesn't refer to underage.
Quote from: willo on April 18, 2007, 07:25:05 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 18, 2007, 05:50:29 PM
Quote from: willo on April 18, 2007, 05:46:49 PM
Quote from: 15 Johnny Blues on April 04, 2007, 05:21:26 PM
http://www.srfcultras.net/index01.html
Check this out - saw story in Evening Herald today, has to be seen to be believed! Maybe when the Joy is closed it could be redeveloped to house Rovers?
go back to bogger land the lot of you and let dublin rule itself
good man willo, that's very clever stuff.
should that not be taytos
story willo
Quote from: dublinfella on April 18, 2007, 11:17:28 PM
Quote from: behind the wire on April 18, 2007, 04:41:19 PM
good vibrations/roversfella, when are you both just going to come out and admit that shamrock rovers are a pack of beggars who want taxpayers to build them a stadium because they cant build one of their own. its that simple. it is for this reason that the tallaght gaa community feel aggrieved and have take action. they dont mind rovers using the stadium, they just want to be able to access it also. can one of you please tell me what the problem is here.
a GAA pitch doesnt fit.
yes it does
Quote from: dublinfella on April 18, 2007, 11:16:10 PM
Quote from: Fishead_Sam on April 18, 2007, 08:07:36 PM
Goodrelations all you have to do is leave us in charge of building it, when the GAA say they will build somthing they get it done fast and well. We have been putting up stadiums and replacing them with bigger and better with GAA Ingenuity for decades. Promise you leave the GAA in charge and it will be the best facilities and built fast, alot faster than the FAI or any soccer organisation even if we have to go back to planning we would get it done better and quicker than anyone fromn the useless FAI or IRFU.
the stadium would have been completed last year but for the intervention of the GAA.
methinks you have missed the point somewhat here.....
but if it was a huge section of the community wouldn't have access to the community facility.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 19, 2007, 08:36:06 AM
but if it was a huge section of the community wouldn't have access to the community facility.
So it'll be just like Croke Park then?? ;)
Sorry coats already on, it was too easy and I couldn't resist.
Quote from: SammyG on April 19, 2007, 08:40:49 AM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 19, 2007, 08:36:06 AM
but if it was a huge section of the community wouldn't have access to the community facility.
So it'll be just like Croke Park then?? ;)
Sorry coats already on, it was too easy and I couldn't resist.
:) in the old days maybe!!
hmmm
I know you were joking but so many people have tried to compare this to Croke Park it's gone beyond a joke.
If the GAA had only paid 10% of the cost of Croke Park you might have a point.
If Croke Park was a publically owned stadium you might have a point.
Croke Park is owned by the GAA. It is not a public facility. Therefore comparisons cannot be drawn.
Willo - go ahead and call the GAA nazis and accuse us of focussing on keeping soccer down. That's the kind of shit talk and inability to face reality that has soccer in this country in the state its in. When you realise this, look in the mirror honestly and address the real issues rather than blaming the GAA, Christian Brothers, Fianna Fáil etc etc then you might make progress. The bitter little man attitude gets you nowhere. The GAA is not holding soccer back. Ye are doing that to yourselves by moaning like bitches when your dinner isn't served to you on a plate at the right temperature.
Also - if our games are such a joke how come so many people come to see them. I suppose county board officials go out and round them up at gun point onto cattle trucks. And also, it the games are such a joke let them in to Tallaght. The young people will soon decide.
Willo, can I ask you a question ?
Where is Deco and Anto ?
:D
Another Pearl from Willo......
"I would love to back to the start and tell those idiots who started this bigoted organisation to think again.Let the masses play a real game like soccer like it is done throughout the world and we would all be happier"
Know I know why the Ultras keep their forum locked to the public.
Embarrassment! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Classic! we havent had one this dumb in a while.
Oh not the it's played around the world, therefore it's better argument. McDonalds is the world's most popular restaurant, doesn't make it the world's best restaurant.
The bigoted argument? Ask any Rangers players who has the misfortune to come to Lansdowne roadm they'd know all about the fair minded Irish soccer public. The GAA puts it's interests first, that's hardly bigotry, get over it. Now, booing someone who plays for a protestant football club is plain and simple bigotry.
I blame too many headers. IQ goes down the toilet.
Really you should leave it at that willo me aul china, you're just making a fool of yourself.
Quote from: tayto on April 19, 2007, 01:52:47 PM
Classic! we havent had one this dumb in a while.
Oh not the it's played around the world, therefore it's better argument. McDonalds is the world's most popular restaurant, doesn't make it the world's best restaurant.
The bigoted argument? Ask any Rangers players who has the misfortune to come to Lansdowne roadm they'd know all about the fair minded Irish soccer public. The GAA puts it's interests first, that's hardly bigotry, get over it. Now, booing someone who plays for a protestant football club is plain and simple bigotry.
I blame too many headers. IQ goes down the toilet.
Really you should leave it at that willo me aul china, you're just making a fool of yourself.
GAA a small organisation in the world of sport..they think their great in Ireland.any one can play their footbal .kick and catch whats that all about..play a skillful game and go back to bogland.
willo, you arent welcome on the gaa board. we will respect your opinion but please dont insult us. try the owc site, you will be able to find people who share your views on the gaa there.
im a good neighbour, so if worse comes to worse rovers can use my back garden, it would be big enough for the ground game. there should be enough room on the patio for the 'supporters'.
p.s. i will have to close the blinds and go away for the day though.
Great article in todays Star...
[/IMG]
__________________
Looks like all yesterday's press caused a bit of a stir in the TD camp. From no comments in yesterday's press, today they've put Kennedy front and centre to talk to Ian O'Riordain of the Irish Times (is he a half way house between GAA correspondant Sean Moran and football correspondant Emmett Malone?).
Irish Times 19.04.07
Thomas Davis reiterate their offer of direct talks
Ian O'Riordan
The increasingly bitter row over the use of the Tallaght stadium site took a somewhat milder twist yesterday when the Thomas Davis GAA club reiterated their invitation to Shamrock Rovers to sit down and try to establish more cordial talks on the matter.
This follows developments earlier this week when Rovers chairman Jonathan Roche described as "a disgrace" a letter sent earlier this month by his counterpart at Thomas Davis, Christopher O'Donnell, to members of the GAA club in relation to the issue of access to the proposed stadium.
However, Thomas Davis club spokesman David Kennedy has attempted to ease the row by calling for both parties to sit down and talk, which he claims has already been offered to the soccer club on several occasions.
"We're as frustrated as everyone else by the whole saga," said Kennedy. "But, in fact, we've held out that invitation on more than one occasion over the past number of months, but have had no response whatsoever. Your guess is as good as mine why that's been the case. But we're more than willing to extend that invitation again."
In the letter, dated April 7th, O'Donnell encouraged members to make an election issue of the club's fight to win access to the stadium and provides detailed instruction to members on how the issue should be raised with politicians during the forthcoming campaign.
He also suggested they should not support local Fianna Fail TD Conor Lenihan, a Minister for State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, because he had recently signalled to club officials his support for the line taken by John O'Donoghue, that Government funding for the project be conditional upon it being used solely for soccer.
O'Donnell says the politician has been informed he will not be welcome at the club until the GAA is accommodated at the stadium.
"That letter was circulated to our members to keep them up to date in what is a very important and very sensitive issue," explained Kennedy, "and was somehow leaked to press. But we'd dismiss any claims that the contents were inaccurate.
"We're certainly not trying to sour relations here. We're happy to speak with anyone on this, including the minister, and we'd certainly like to appease any fears they might have by what we're trying to achieve here, because the reality is this stadium can still be open for use in 12 months time."
In the meantime a preliminary hearing takes place this Friday on Thomas Davis' successful request for a judicial review of the case, although that is merely to establish a date and procedures for the hearing itself. "That's essentially a planning matter anyway, but the real issue here is to get the stadium finished as soon as possible," said Kennedy.
"So we are available to talk, and always have been, and in fact we offered to bring in a mediator, from a soccer background, but Rovers haven't taken us up on that either. From what I can see Jonathan Roche is very genuine in his approach, and so are we, and hopefully we can establish some cordial relations here.
"But we certainly didn't turn this into a political issue. That was done by the minister himself when he insisted all funding would be withdrawn if the stadium went ahead as a multi-purpose facility, despite that being voted the case by the South Dublin County Council back in December of 2005."
lies lies and more lies...
but at least their cage is rattled.. BIG TIME!
Well Im sure that the article was read by the Editor of the Star and he gave the go ahead for it to be published and after all the reporter is a professional one so he knows what hes writing about.
It is amazing though the way Thomas Davis are very quick to try and defend the fact that they published a 13 page letter to all its members trying to bad mouth Shamrock Rovers,Conor Lenahan and the Government in general.
That letter carries a pack of lies any way.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 19, 2007, 04:36:21 PM"That letter was circulated to our members to keep them up to date in what is a very important and very sensitive issue," explained Kennedy, "and was somehow leaked to press. But we'd dismiss any claims that the contents were inaccurate.
That's what you get for not having the letter self-destruct once read ::)
Quote from: deiseach on April 19, 2007, 05:57:40 PM
Quote from: Good Relations on April 19, 2007, 04:36:21 PM"That letter was circulated to our members to keep them up to date in what is a very important and very sensitive issue," explained Kennedy, "and was somehow leaked to press. But we'd dismiss any claims that the contents were inaccurate.
That's what you get for not having the letter self-destruct once read ::)
bizarre that he didnt think that one of the 1,000+ letters might make it into a journo's hands. Especially when it includes something as explosive as banning a Minister from your clubhouse.
why is he now asking for talks with Rovers, I thought this was beetween the GAA and the Govt and nothing to do with the hoops? ???
anyone else hear that St Marks in Tallaght have formally withdrawn support from the Thomas Davis position on the stadium and their legal challenge?
dublinfella, give me a good reason why the stadium should be built exclusively for shamrock rovers without them making anything more than a nominal contribution.
Quote from: behind the wire on April 19, 2007, 07:09:50 PM
dublinfella, give me a good reason why the stadium should be built exclusively for shamrock rovers without them making anything more than a nominal contribution.
And so it begins once again . . . :D
Quote from: behind the wire on April 19, 2007, 07:09:50 PM
dublinfella, give me a good reason why the stadium should be built exclusively for shamrock rovers without them making anything more than a nominal contribution.
Its not being built exclusivly for them. They are going to be anchor tenents in a soccer sized facility, sharing with possibly another LOI club, local cup games, underage internationals etc. Also mentioned have been rugby, hockey, underage and ladies GAA.
Or put another way, why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished, the stadium redisigned and capacity reduced for Thmas Davis who have and will contribute ZERO?
good point dublinfella, at least you present a well thought out and reasonable argument.
i can now see where you are coming from, however, i still think that a public facility should be open to all the public - including the gaa, rugby etc. will rovers have to pay rent as they are the anchor tenants?
Quote from: behind the wire on April 19, 2007, 07:36:35 PM
good point dublinfella, at least you present a well thought out and reasonable argument.
i can now see where you are coming from, however, i still think that a public facility should be open to all the public - including the gaa, rugby etc. will rovers have to pay rent as they are the anchor tenants?
my understanding is yes with SDCC also taking a cut from the advertising and ancillary (bar, hot dogs) revenue.
Rovers get 40 games a year and the option to build their own clubhouse and the SDCC can decide what to do with the stadium the rest of the time, ie the local schools, clubs and any other sports that can be accommodated.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 07:18:49 PM
... why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished ...
Is this the famous €100,000 ( :D :D :D)? And which Rovers paid this? One of the tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, supplier-robbing, employee-screwing incarnations of Rovers, that you claim is different to the current version? If so, their contribution is irrelevant, isn't it, since they are in no way related to the present Rovers. Isn't that so?
Or is it the present Rovers? If so, didn't they get more than fully compensated when they SOLD back the lease on the property that had been donated to them completely buckshee? What has happened to that money, by the way?
sounds ok to me, so long as rovers pay for their own club house and pay rent for the use of the field then that should work out ok. the government must make sole decision as to when each sporting organisation can use the facility. i still dont know why they cant let the gaa use it though as it would be a great help to gaelic games in the area.
Quote from: behind the wire on April 19, 2007, 07:48:23 PM
sounds ok to me, so long as rovers pay for their own club house and pay rent for the use of the field then that should work out ok. the government must make sole decision as to when each sporting organisation can use the facility. i still dont know why they cant let the gaa use it though as it would be a great help to gaelic games in the area.
they are letting the GAA use it, its just the structural changes to the site to accomodate even a small full sized GAA pitch would be too expensive, take too long and reduce capacity to a point where the stadium will run at a permanent loss.
there is no ideological stance been taken here, a GAA pitch simply wont fit.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 07:51:14 PM
reduce capacity to a point where the stadium will run at a permanent loss.
So the annual cost of running a stadium is . . . what, exactly?
Quote from: deiseach on April 19, 2007, 07:55:53 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 07:51:14 PM
reduce capacity to a point where the stadium will run at a permanent loss.
So the annual cost of running a stadium is . . . what, exactly?
that i dont know exactly, but like when LR was being planned there was a formula of minimum number of seats to make in viable x times it was used per year x the planned life of the place / the building and upkeep costs. it was 50,000 with LR. if the planners came in and insisted on less than this they would have moved elsewhere.
tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.
Quote from: Hardy on April 19, 2007, 07:47:56 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 07:18:49 PM
... why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished ...
Is this the famous €100,000 ( :D :D :D)? And which Rovers paid this? One of the tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, supplier-robbing, employee-screwing incarnations of Rovers, that you claim is different to the current version? If so, their contribution is irrelevant, isn't it, since they are in no way related to the present Rovers. Isn't that so?
its still more than the GAA have offered....
so its a national disgrace that a soccer club that needs it gets a stadium built nearly for free but justice will be served if a GAA club that dont need it gets in totally for free?
thats krazy logic!
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 08:02:47 PM
that i dont know exactly, but like when LR was being planned there was a formula of minimum number of seats to make in viable x times it was used per year x the planned life of the place / the building and upkeep costs. it was 50,000 with LR. if the planners came in and insisted on less than this they would have moved elsewhere.
tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.
I'd like to see the figures, thanks. If you're suggesting that 50,000 is an absolute minimum figure for Lansdowne Road to turn a profit, with a 49,000 capacity making it loss making, then the FAI and the IRFU must be going to make absolute buttons out of the new Lansdowne, whch is clearly not the case. Perhaps you are confusing an accounting loss (when you lose money) with an economic loss (when the 'loss' is the difference between what you make and what you would have made had you pursued a different course).
Quote from: deiseach on April 19, 2007, 08:14:04 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 08:02:47 PM
that i dont know exactly, but like when LR was being planned there was a formula of minimum number of seats to make in viable x times it was used per year x the planned life of the place / the building and upkeep costs. it was 50,000 with LR. if the planners came in and insisted on less than this they would have moved elsewhere.
tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.
I'd like to see the figures, thanks. If you're suggesting that 50,000 is an absolute minimum figure for Lansdowne Road to turn a profit, with a 49,000 capacity making it loss making, then the FAI and the IRFU must be going to make absolute buttons out of the new Lansdowne, whch is clearly not the case. Perhaps you are confusing an accounting loss (when you lose money) with an economic loss (when the 'loss' is the difference between what you make and what you would have made had you pursued a different course).
[/quote
I dont have the exact figures to hand, but there is a minumum number of seats in any sporting arena that are needed to make it financially viable. factored into this are the cost of building, the amount of games per year, the upkeep of the facilty and any extras that can be made out of holding other events.
are you denying this? or are you arguing for the sake of it?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 08:05:24 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 19, 2007, 07:47:56 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 07:18:49 PM
... why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished ...
Is this the famous €100,000 ( :D :D :D)? And which Rovers paid this? One of the tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, supplier-robbing, employee-screwing incarnations of Rovers, that you claim is different to the current version? If so, their contribution is irrelevant, isn't it, since they are in no way related to the present Rovers. Isn't that so?
its still more than the GAA have offered....
so its a national disgrace that a soccer club that needs it gets a stadium built nearly for free but justice will be served if a GAA club that dont need it gets in totally for free?
thats krazy logic!
And your answers to my questions?
Quote from: Hardy on April 19, 2007, 08:23:09 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 08:05:24 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 19, 2007, 07:47:56 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 07:18:49 PM
... why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished ...
Is this the famous €100,000 ( :D :D :D)? And which Rovers paid this? One of the tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, supplier-robbing, employee-screwing incarnations of Rovers, that you claim is different to the current version? If so, their contribution is irrelevant, isn't it, since they are in no way related to the present Rovers. Isn't that so?
its still more than the GAA have offered....
so its a national disgrace that a soccer club that needs it gets a stadium built nearly for free but justice will be served if a GAA club that dont need it gets in totally for free?
thats krazy logic!
And your answers to my questions?
dont know, dont care, none of the GAA's business in the same way its none of theirs what goes on in GAA grounds. what deal rovers and the sdcc strike to finish the thing is their business. build rathcoole now.
the SDCC managed to engineer something that will raise revenue for the council and still be a public amenity. the gaa get offered a similar deal on rathcoole. rovers get a home. win, win, win. but no. lets sue instead.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 08:18:34 PM
I dont have the exact figures to hand, but there is a minumum number of seats in any sporting arena that are needed to make it financially viable. factored into this are the cost of building, the amount of games per year, the upkeep of the facilty and any extras that can be made out of holding other events.
are you denying this? or are you arguing for the sake of it?
Yes, I am denying it. Let's say Tallaght Stadium has a capacity of 2,000. Rovers fill it 40 times a year - given they need a 10,000 capacity stadium, that should be a cinch. Other groups / events fill it ten times a year, so we have the stadium filled once a week. This strikes me as being pretty good. An average Nationwide Conference club (http://www.fansfocus.com/football/conference/-attendances.php?comp=5) could only dream of having FIFTY such attendances a year. Yet you're saying that this hypothetical stadium would be loss making. It seems counter-intuitive, to say the least.
I'll confess to partially arguing for the sake of it though. I enjoy arguing.
Quoteits still more than the GAA have offered....
Don't think so. How can a negative amount be more than zero?
Quotedont know, dont care, none of the GAA's business in the same way its none of theirs what goes on in GAA grounds.
It's my business as a taxpayer.
Quotewhat deal rovers and the sdcc strike to finish the thing is their business
The judge didn't seem to think so. I'd say it stopped being exclusively their business when SDCC promised to accommodate the GAA in the stadium and were then forced to renege by the minister. In what way is it unreasonable for TD to demand that SDCC/Minister O'Donoghue deliver what was promised? And Shamrock Rovers scream that THEY are hard done by! They get a free stadium IN ADDITION to money raised from selling something they got free from the taxpayer, back to the taxpayer! Money that has since gone God knows where. And then they have the jaw-dropping gall to issue a statement that they are happy to accommodate junior (sic) GAA as if it were THEIR stadium!
Forgive the cliché, but you couldn't make it up. Unless you were the scriptwriter for a Marx Brothers caper. Monkey Business, maybe.
Quote from: deiseach on April 19, 2007, 08:36:00 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 08:18:34 PM
I dont have the exact figures to hand, but there is a minumum number of seats in any sporting arena that are needed to make it financially viable. factored into this are the cost of building, the amount of games per year, the upkeep of the facilty and any extras that can be made out of holding other events.
are you denying this? or are you arguing for the sake of it?
Yes, I am denying it. Let's say Tallaght Stadium has a capacity of 2,000. Rovers fill it 40 times a year - given they need a 10,000 capacity stadium, that should be a cinch. Other groups / events fill it ten times a year, so we have the stadium filled once a week. This strikes me as being pretty good. An average Nationwide Conference club (http://www.fansfocus.com/football/conference/-attendances.php?comp=5) could only dream of having FIFTY such attendances a year. Yet you're saying that this hypothetical stadium would be loss making. It seems counter-intuitive, to say the least.
I'll confess to partially arguing for the sake of it though. I enjoy arguing.
I dont follow. Building a stadium of 2,000 at a higher cost than building one of 10,000 is more likely to be financially viable?
Get up the yard.
If SDCC get 10% of the gate, its going to generate more on a crowd of 8,000 than one of 2,000. The fact that I had to type that out shows the levels people are willing to drag the debate to rather than just think for a second a chairman in the association is acting like a **** for the sake of it.
Quote from: Hardy on April 19, 2007, 08:50:56 PM
The judge didn't seem to think so. I'd say it stopped being exclusively their business when SDCC promised to accommodate the GAA in the stadium and were then forced to renege by the minister. In what way is it unreasonable for TD to demand that SDCC/Minister O'Donoghue deliver what was promised? And Shamrock Rovers scream that THEY are hard done by! They get a free stadium IN ADDITION to money raised from selling something they got free from the taxpayer, back to the taxpayer! Money that has since gone God knows where. And then they have the jaw-dropping gall to issue a statement that they are happy to accommodate junior (sic) GAA as if it were THEIR stadium!
Forgive the cliché, but you couldn't make it up. Unless you were the scriptwriter for a Marx Brothers caper. Monkey Business, maybe.
the judge hasnt made a call on their case. just that they have a right to argue it.
the stadium is not free. there is a dispute about how muich rovers put in, but they put something in.
and the cost to the exchequer will be more if TD get their way and the ground run at a loss going forward. so give over with the concerned taxpayer bullshit.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 09:22:44 PM
I dont follow. Building a stadium of 2,000 at a higher cost than building one of 10,000 is more likely to be financially viable?
You're shifting the argument. What you said originally was:
tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.So you can see why I'd like to see this study which shows that the stadium would be (and I emphasis it again)
loss making because even you seem to be backing away from it now.
Quotethe judge hasnt made a call on their case. just that they have a right to argue it.
As I said, the judge, then, disagrees with you in that regard. You said it was between SDCC and SR. The judge says, unlike you, no – TD have a legitimate interest.
Quotethe stadium is not free. there is a dispute about how mich rovers put in, but they put something in.
The only figure I've seen them quote is €100K. I'd say they wouldn't be slow to trumpet it if it was more. It's not even clear whether that was their own money, or under which of the several guises under which they've scammed their way across the sporting landscape of the country it was spent. However, when you consider that they got the land free and then SOLD the lease back to SDCC, they are net financial beneficiaries already and not contributors. So the stadium is not just free, they've been paid to use it!
Quoteand the cost to the exchequer will be more if TD get their way and the ground run at a loss fgoing forward. so give over with the concerned taxpayer bullshit
Tendentious and spurious and nothing but speculation. And try to argue civilly.
QuoteLet's say Tallaght Stadium has a capacity of 2,000. Rovers fill it 40 times a year
That would be the Shamrock Rovers ice hockey team or something that play 40 home games per season ?! an 80 game season ??
Quote from: deiseach on April 19, 2007, 09:33:25 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 09:22:44 PM
I dont follow. Building a stadium of 2,000 at a higher cost than building one of 10,000 is more likely to be financially viable?
You're shifting the argument. What you said originally was:
tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.
So you can see why I'd like to see this study which shows that the stadium would be (and I emphasis it again) loss making because even you seem to be backing away from it now.
am i?
any stadium costs x per seat to build, a figure which increases as capacity increases. 10,000 seats is the number they felt was the compromise between building costs and potential revenues. no point making it too big as capacity would be wasted and it would have cost too much to build per seat. no point making it too small as there wouldnt be enough punters in the door for SDCC to make their money back off their cut, so would have cost too much per seat to build also.
I dont have access to private planning documents in the SDCC, but the ministers position has always been that the reduction in capacity the larger pitch would require would ensure the stadium would not be able to pay for itself at a resonable ticket price.
now deiseach, explain to the group your theory that a cheaper 10,000 seater is worse value to the taxpayer than a more expensive 2,000 seater
Quote from: blast05 on April 19, 2007, 09:36:55 PM
QuoteLet's say Tallaght Stadium has a capacity of 2,000. Rovers fill it 40 times a year
That would be the Shamrock Rovers ice hockey team or something that play 40 home games per season ?! an 80 game season ??
they have a guaranteed right to hire the park for 40 games a season whether they take it or not is another issue. 20 league games, various cup games, friendlies, reserve team, u21's, ladies. im sure it will add up.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 09:44:05 PM
now deiseach, explain to the group your theory that a cheaper 10,000 seater is worse value to the taxpayer than a more expensive 2,000 seater
Point out where I said that. I questioned why a smaller stadium would be loss making and pointed out that clubs in England - to name but one place - get by on crowds of far less than 2,000 (and presumably they have to pay the construction costs of the ground themselves). So to move this along, I'll agree that a 10,000 capacity stadium would give a better monetary return than a 2,000 capacity stadium.
Now I'd like you to demonstrate why Tallaght seems to be uniquely incapable of making a profit, however small, from a 2,000 capacity ground.
Quote from: deiseach on April 19, 2007, 10:29:52 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 09:44:05 PM
now deiseach, explain to the group your theory that a cheaper 10,000 seater is worse value to the taxpayer than a more expensive 2,000 seater
Point out where I said that. I questioned why a smaller stadium would be loss making and pointed out that clubs in England - to name but one place - get by on crowds of far less than 2,000 (and presumably they have to pay the construction costs of the ground themselves). So to move this along, I'll agree that a 10,000 capacity stadium would give a better monetary return than a 2,000 capacity stadium.
Now I'd like you to demonstrate why Tallaght seems to be uniquely incapable of making a profit, however small, from a 2,000 capacity ground.
I strongly doubt that the conference sides you listed play in front of full houses every week. there is no stadium in that division that has a capacity of 2,000. im afraid dont see what you are arguing. Rovers would be better off with 2,000 seats because average crowds in the english conference are shite? whats the correlation?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 10:53:43 PM
I strongly doubt that the conference sides you listed play in front of full houses every week. there is no stadium in that division that has a capacity of 2,000. im afraid dont see what you are arguing. Rovers would be better off with 2,000 seats because average crowds in the english conference are shite? whats the correlation?
No, that is not my argument. You said at the start of this that a reduced capacity stadium would be [resists urge to use bold type again] loss making. I'm saying that this is hard to believe and asked you to substantiate that assertion. I'm still waiting.
I know that this debate seems to have been going on forever and will run and run, but two points struck me that have been mentioned by the pro Rovers people, that make no sense to me. It has been claimed that the use of the description "Junior Football" was meant to refer to under age games, but how can Ladies Football be played on the ground, as Ladies Football matches are always played on full-sized GAA pitches. Also who is this mysterious second League of Ireland club that are likely to be playing home games in Tallaght, that John O'Donoghue has referred to. To the best of my knowledge there is no such club.
Quote from: Onlooker on April 19, 2007, 11:21:07 PM
I know that this debate seems to have been going on forever and will run and run
Ach, you say it like it's a bad thing ;)
Quote from: deiseach on April 19, 2007, 11:07:18 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 10:53:43 PM
I strongly doubt that the conference sides you listed play in front of full houses every week. there is no stadium in that division that has a capacity of 2,000. im afraid dont see what you are arguing. Rovers would be better off with 2,000 seats because average crowds in the english conference are shite? whats the correlation?
No, that is not my argument. You said at the start of this that a reduced capacity stadium would be [resists urge to use bold type again] loss making. I'm saying that this is hard to believe and asked you to substantiate that assertion. I'm still waiting.
the cost of competing the stadium as planned is x. divide that by 10,000.
the cost of demolishing the structures, removing the undersoil drainaige and foundations, redesigning the stadium, re apply for planning permission is y. divide that by 2,000.
x/10,000 is considered financially viable when the SDCC get a cut of the Rovers crowd, the ads and the rental from the stadium when the hoops arent using it. it works taking the stadium at €5m to build, put simply at c500 per seat and at €15 a go it takes 334 games to break even on the ground
y=€15m
, which is the costing the dept put on the total redisgn it works out at €7,500 per seat, meaning it takes 5,000 games to break even.
y/2000 is considered a waste of time
Just got a phone call of a mate of mine and he told me that grants applied for by Lucan Sarsfield, Thomas Davis and St.Marks have all been turned down pending the outcome of the JR...Pressure is on TD now.. ;D ;D
Quote from: Good Relations on April 20, 2007, 11:01:16 AM
Just got a phone call of a mate of mine and he told me that grants applied for by Lucan Sarsfield, Thomas Davis and St.Marks have all been turned down pending the outcome of the JR...Pressure is on TD now.. ;D ;D
Well if an anonymous mate of an anti GAA, Rovers fans says so then it must be true :o
If I came out with something like that Dublifella would be looking for documented proof :D :D :D :D :D :D
If ya read the back of yesterdays Daily Mail it was in it...
No Im sure newspapers cant be saying things like that without some documented proof...
Quote from: Good Relations on April 20, 2007, 11:12:31 AM
No Im sure newspapers cant be saying things like that without some documented proof...
Of course not, sure when has the Daily Mail ever printed anything inaccurate :D :D :D :D :D :D
Im just saying that it is a coincidence that these grants have been halted at this time.... ;) ;)
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 09:47:35 PM
they have a guaranteed right to hire the park for 40 games a season whether they take it or not is another issue. 20 league games, various cup games, friendlies, reserve team, u21's, ladies. im sure it will add up.
Ok they have the right to hire it for 40 games but say 20 senior league, 5-6cup (max), that leaves 14 for other matches. They will not get any more than 500 at any other team than the first team, they are already (according to FAI figures) getting just over 1000 for that, so how are they going to
fill the stadium 40 times a year?
er mad i say, yer mad ::)
Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 09:47:35 PM
Quote from: blast05 on April 19, 2007, 09:36:55 PM
QuoteLet's say Tallaght Stadium has a capacity of 2,000. Rovers fill it 40 times a year
That would be the Shamrock Rovers ice hockey team or something that play 40 home games per season ?! an 80 game season ??
they have a guaranteed right to hire the park for 40 games a season whether they take it or not is another issue. 20 league games, various cup games, friendlies, reserve team, u21's, ladies. im sure it will add up.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The financiers must be delighted that the development cost will be recouped from the Massive ;D reserve, u-21 and ladies attendences.
Is there any word yet whether these games will be all ticket ? Demand will be through the roof !!
Quote from: Bensars on April 20, 2007, 01:29:52 PM
er mad i say, yer mad ::)Quote from: dublinfella on April 19, 2007, 09:47:35 PM
Quote from: blast05 on April 19, 2007, 09:36:55 PM
QuoteLet's say Tallaght Stadium has a capacity of 2,000. Rovers fill it 40 times a year
That would be the Shamrock Rovers ice hockey team or something that play 40 home games per season ?! an 80 game season ??
they have a guaranteed right to hire the park for 40 games a season whether they take it or not is another issue. 20 league games, various cup games, friendlies, reserve team, u21's, ladies. im sure it will add up.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The financiers must be delighted that the development cost will be recouped from the Massive ;D reserve, u-21 and ladies attendences.
Is there any word yet whether these games will be all ticket ? Demand will be through the roof !!
as opposed to the Thomas Davis minor c's? this tit for tat shite could go on all day.
anyone here a member of St Marks in Tallaght? Can they tell us about them withdrawing support from TD? Lucan Sarsfields also had their grant witheld (as I said would happen last year btw....). The hand that feeds is being withdrawn
Dublinfella:
"The hand that feeds is being withdrawn"
there is a good chance that in 2 months time there will be a different gov, there is a near certainty that there will be a different minister for sport. john o donoghue 'promise' will have been kept to the best of his ability and the new guy will do his thing whatever that is. that is what tds 'won' in the high court.....
Did anyone see Drogheda manager Paul Doolin on TV3 Sports News last night. Despite winning the game he was extremely angry at the treatment that one of his players received from "a section of Shamrock Rovers supporters". What was it about, as it must have been pretty bad to judge by Doolin's comments.
No idea, no doubt Dublin fella can fill us in.
I caught a small bit on the radio this morning. It appears one of the Drogheda players (Webb?) recently lost his wife and is just back playing after her death. Some of the Rovers fans were giving him some verbals over it.
Would you expect more?
Jesus Christ! What?
Classy guys these Rovers fans.
There was a section of the Rovers support chanting abuse at Webb about his wifes death either during the match or in a minutes silence before it according to Newstalk (i was only half listening until it grabbed my attention so not sure which it was). I think Webb is an ex Rovers player so in fairness to the Shamrock Rovers fans, they had good reason ::) ::) :'( >:(
Interesting that RTE didn't see fit to mention it on their website report .... http://www.rte.ie/sport/2007/0420/shamrock1.html (http://www.rte.ie/sport/2007/0420/shamrock1.html) ..... can you imagine the abuse the GAA would have got in the media if a similar event occurred at a GAA match
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 21, 2007, 05:09:51 PM
I caught a small bit on the radio this morning. It appears one of the Drogheda players (Webb?) recently lost his wife and is just back playing after her death. Some of the Rovers fans were giving him some verbals over it.
Would you expect more?
"Some verbals" doesn't quite explain it.
There are different versions flying around. Most are agreed on something very like "isn't cancer a bitch" was shouted at Simon Webb whenever he was playing close to the more noxious of the Rovers supporters. Webb's wife I think died from cancer. That's why Doolin was livid and Webb was reported to be shattered.
I'm actually taken aback. What utter fuckin scum.
I know that GAA heads are fond of generalization, but any suggestion that this kind of behavior is typical of Rovers fans is absolutely ludicrous. Genuine Rovers fans abhor such carry-on and condemn it unreservedly. There are many Rovers members, volunteers and genuine fans (I'm all three) and after all the time, effort and money put in, it is nauseating to see such lowlife turn up at Rovers matches, intent on aping there lowlife counterparts across the water. Their is absolutely NO excuse for the infantile chants heard last night. The Rovers board has issued an apology on www.shamrockrovers.ie - and if the perpetrators can be identified, they will be barred from future games.
Fair enough hoop, i'm not taring all hoops fans, i'm sure it was a tiny minority but the mind boggles at anyone stooping so low. On top of the recent banner it dosent reflect well on your fanbase at all.
Quote from: hoop on April 21, 2007, 07:00:24 PM
I know that GAA heads are fond of generalization, but any suggestion that this kind of behavior is typical of Rovers fans is absolutely ludicrous. Genuine Rovers fans abhor such carry-on and condemn it unreservedly. There are many Rovers members, volunteers and genuine fans (I'm all three) and after all the time, effort and money put in, it is nauseating to see such lowlife turn up at Rovers matches, intent on aping there lowlife counterparts across the water. Their is absolutely NO excuse for the infantile chants heard last night. The Rovers board has issued an apology on www.shamrockrovers.ie - and if the perpetrators can be identified, they will be barred from future games.
It isn't an appropriate time in the thread to attempt to split my side with laughter with starting your post like that.
Any idea why the sick abuse was not reported to the stewards or were there any reports of other fans trying to stop them?
ha, good point main street, start with a massive contradiction, accuse GAA fans as a whiole of being fond of generalisations hahahahaha ::)
Quote from: tayto on April 21, 2007, 09:25:39 PM
ha, good point main street, start with a massive contradiction, accuse GAA fans as a whiole of being fond of generalisations hahahahaha ::)
This entire thread is full of lazy, stupid generalizations. Get over yourselves.
Regarding Main Street's post - Very few heard what was said. Genuine Rovers fans (the vast majority) are in a state of shock today on learning what happened.
People who chant such rubbish are utter, utter gobshites - and have little interest in what happens on the field and could probably only name a couple of Rovers players.
It has always been a mystery to me why such lowlives gravitate to soccer matches. Believe me - those of us who invest so much time and money in our club are livid that these idiots continue to turn up at our matches.
Quote from: magickingdom on April 21, 2007, 02:27:00 PM
Dublinfella:
"The hand that feeds is being withdrawn"
there is a good chance that in 2 months time there will be a different gov, there is a near certainty that there will be a different minister for sport. john o donoghue 'promise' will have been kept to the best of his ability and the new guy will do his thing whatever that is. that is what tds 'won' in the high court.....
what guarantee do you have that anyone else will side with TD? no political party has supported the GAA position....
but at least you accept TD are only interested in delaying the project
Quoteand if the perpetrators can be identified, they will be barred from future games.
Serious detective work required there so .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAB1eI4VvXk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAB1eI4VvXk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLi85h5xnI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLi85h5xnI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHV5-Advmf0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHV5-Advmf0)
Quote from: blast05 on April 21, 2007, 10:35:44 PM
Quoteand if the perpetrators can be identified, they will be barred from future games.
Serious detective work required there so .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAB1eI4VvXk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAB1eI4VvXk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLi85h5xnI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLi85h5xnI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHV5-Advmf0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHV5-Advmf0)
If those links worked, I might know what you are on about.
Quote from: blast05 on April 21, 2007, 10:35:44 PM
Quoteand if the perpetrators can be identified, they will be barred from future games.
Serious detective work required there so .....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAB1eI4VvXk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAB1eI4VvXk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLi85h5xnI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGLi85h5xnI)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHV5-Advmf0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHV5-Advmf0)
a video of nothing, dundalk fans attacking rovers fans and running from the cops and a fight outside a GAA pub.
your point is?
Appears to be a problem with YouTube at the moment.
Point isn't about these clips - the point is that words are cheap until such time as SR ban all involved for life.
And while you are at it, i don't suppose there is any chance of banning those that were involved in the 3rd YouTube cliip - the Hill 16 pub scrap ... and given that there was about a hundred or so involved in this, this can hardly be dismissed as a "tiny majority" (as per apology on SR website) given that official match attendances are a snip over 1,000.
Sorry, i don't doubt that you are a genuine supporter but having such a significant amount of folk associated with your club means the whole club will be tarred with the same brush, similar principle as English soccer supporters abroad.
Unless this element is rooted out and banned then i don't think your club are entitled to any access to whatever form the redeveloped Tallaght ground takes.
Quote from: blast05 on April 21, 2007, 10:59:26 PM
Appears to be a problem with YouTube at the moment.
Point isn't about these clips - the point is that words are cheap until such time as SR ban all involved for life.
And while you are at it, i don't suppose there is any chance of banning those that were involved in the 3rd YouTube cliip - the Hill 16 pub scrap ... and given that there was about a hundred or so involved in this, this can hardly be dismissed as a "tiny majority" (as per apology on SR website) given that official match attendances are a snip over 1,000.
Sorry, i don't doubt that you are a genuine supporter but having such a significant amount of folk associated with your club means the whole club will be tarred with the same brush, similar principle as English soccer supporters abroad.
Unless this element is rooted out and banned then i don't think your club are entitled to any access to whatever form the redeveloped Tallaght ground takes.
one of your clips was of nothing, one was of dundalk lads acting the bollocks and the third is a scrap on the street 2 miles from the ground. what are Rovers supposed to do about that?
we should worry about referees getting locked in car boots before we lecture anyone else
Quotewhat are Rovers supposed to do about that?
Bury their heads in the sand and pretend that there isn't such a culture associated with their team would seem to be your suggestion but at the same time insist that the government provide gratis a stadium to allow these scumbags spend their welfare getting access to it.
In the UK, they have a campaign to rid the game of racism. A similar campaign to rid your club of scumbags would be a start.
As for referees in boots, do you expect a serious reply to this widespread cancer in GAA ::)
Quote from: blast05 on April 21, 2007, 11:19:42 PM
Quotewhat are Rovers supposed to do about that?
Bury their heads in the sand and pretend that there isn't such a culture associated with their team would seem to be your suggestion but at the same time insist that the government provide gratis a stadium to allow these scumbags spend their welfare getting access to it.
In the UK, they have a campaign to rid the game of racism. A similar campaign to rid your club of scumbags would be a start.
As for referees in boots, do you expect a serious reply to this widespread cancer in GAA ::)
ahhh, the point emerges.
because there were slaps before a game last year the stadium they started building should be given to the GAA. despite the fact that people were banned over that video.
Clutching.
At.
Straws.
I'd be impressed with your protestations about Rovers' impotence to do anything about this scum element if I chose to forget about their condoning the scummy behaviour of the same element by allowing them to display, not two miles away, but within the stadium, the disgusting banner that prompted this thread. Not to menion your own ignoble attempt to defend said disgusting display, which destroyed any vestige of credibilty around here that you might have aspired to.
Quotebecause there were slaps before a game last year the stadium they started building should be given to the GAA. despite the fact that people were banned over that video.
Don't recall saying anything of the sort. For what its worth, i don't have any great opinion either way on the whole TD / SR affair. I just see a 'soccer club with a significant sc**bag support element' getting a 'free stadium from the government' and to my mind, those 2 things shouldn't go hand in hand.
Quote from: blast05 on April 21, 2007, 11:37:02 PM
Quotebecause there were slaps before a game last year the stadium they started building should be given to the GAA. despite the fact that people were banned over that video.
Don't recall saying anything of the sort. For what its worth, i don't have any great opinion either way on the whole TD / SR affair. I just see a 'soccer club with a significant sc**bag support element' getting a 'free stadium from the government' and to my mind, those 2 things shouldn't go hand in hand.
and the free stadium line gets trotted out again. ::)
there is no question Rovers have put money in, the question is how much. but TD want to get their hands on it for nothing. and Rovers are the parasites.
you really couldnt make up the hypocricy.
You're right. The free stadium lie must be nailed once and for all. For the last time, it's not free. Shamrock Rovers (in whatever guise) have contributed €100K. On the other hand, they have received payment hugely in excess of that €100K for the lease of the ground that they sold back to SDCC, having been presented with it for nothing in the first place. So it's not a free stadium. It's better than that. Its a stadium they've been PAID to use. And still they bitch on. As I said before, it's funnier than a Mark Bros. movie.
Quote from: Hardy on April 21, 2007, 11:52:28 PM
You're right. The free stadium lie must be nailed once and for all. For the last time, it's not free. Shamrock Rovers (in whatever guise) have contributed €100K. On the other hand, they have received payment hugely in excess of that €100K for the lease of the ground that they sold back to SDCC, having been presented with it for nothing in the first place. So it's not a free stadium. It's better than that. Its a stadium they've been PAID to use. And still they bitch on. As I said before, it's funnier than a Mark Bros. movie.
Rovers never recieved money for the lease and well you know it.
So your line Rovers are getting something from the state and thats a disgrace. Scandalous. The best thing to do is get that stadium for free for the GAA instead at a huge increased cost to the taxpayer. Because that is different somehow.
Surreal stuff.
QuoteSo your line Rovers are getting something from the state and thats a disgrace. Scandalous.
No, its not. Its just disproportionate funding for a sports capital project in comparison to what other sports get (i haven't really been following this thread that closely up to now so perhaps this line is at odds a little with the TD line - i don't know or care).
Its already happened - a la Athlone Town. Whether thats fair or not - i don't think so. If i wished to set up an ice-hockey franchise in Galway, Limerick and Dublin to compete in the UK leagues should i be entitled to get an arena built for free in each city (this of course would provide a facility that could also be used for ice skating, concerts, etc but with ice-hockey as the anchor tenant). The answer to my question imho is definitely not, unless the franchise were willing to put up a significant amount of financial backing for the project. But seeing as this would not be a prerequisite for this government, then surely every sports club, professional or amateur, community involved or otherwise, are entitled to free sporting facilities .... and this obviously is not acceptable
Oh and i see from the latest opinion polls that the rainbow coalition is gaining on any FF lead one meaning we could have ex Kerry great Jimmy Deenihan presiding over this whole affair in a couple of months. Rovers must be beginning to sweat :P
Quote from: hoop on April 21, 2007, 09:31:10 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 21, 2007, 09:25:39 PM
ha, good point main street, start with a massive contradiction, accuse GAA fans as a whiole of being fond of generalisations hahahahaha ::)
This entire thread is full of lazy, stupid generalizations. Get over yourselves.
Right, so, you thought you'd counter those generalisations by jumping right in with one yourself. Good man. Another intellectual heavyweight on our hands.
QuoteThe best thing to do is get that stadium for free for the GAA instead at a huge increased cost to the taxpayer. Because that is different somehow.
No you muppet, the best thing is to build a municipal stadium for use by all of the major sports clubs in the municipality.
You just can't get it can you? this whole thing is purely about equal treatment and anything else you drag up is just a distraction.
Why should the GAA in south dublin stand by and watch any professional outfit get a free site and a free stadium?
How long do you expect locall gaa lottos to run in order to cover the cost of a similar site and stadium? About the next 1000 years I reckon.
If this was in Nirthern Ireland, this whole dispte would have been ruled illegal under equality grounds two years ago.
I can't believe its still dragging on. One stadium for everybody I say.
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 12:42:27 AM
Quote from: hoop on April 21, 2007, 09:31:10 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 21, 2007, 09:25:39 PM
ha, good point main street, start with a massive contradiction, accuse GAA fans as a whiole of being fond of generalisations hahahahaha ::)
This entire thread is full of lazy, stupid generalizations. Get over yourselves.
Right, so, you thought you'd counter those generalisations by jumping right in with one yourself. Good man. Another intellectual heavyweight on our hands.
Do you ever actually write anything intelligent - or do you just sit there hurling childish abuse all day???
Dublinfella,
"and a fight outside a GAA pub"
Are you seriously trying to link this to the GAA?? The world and its mother knows it was Rovers and Bohs fans, thats a pathetic attempt to bring the GAA into it.
I also note that you have neither condemned the banner as mentioned by Hardy OR the chants (within the staduim) about Webbs wife sying of cancer.
No, but the GAA trying to get access to the stadium, now thats scummy ::)
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 09:23:11 AM
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 12:42:27 AM
Quote from: hoop on April 21, 2007, 09:31:10 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 21, 2007, 09:25:39 PM
ha, good point main street, start with a massive contradiction, accuse GAA fans as a whiole of being fond of generalisations hahahahaha ::)
This entire thread is full of lazy, stupid generalizations. Get over yourselves.
Right, so, you thought you'd counter those generalisations by jumping right in with one yourself. Good man. Another intellectual heavyweight on our hands.
Do you ever actually write anything intelligent - or do you just sit there hurling childish abuse all day???
Well you seem to be having trouble admitting something as simple as how you've totally contradicted yourself in your first post, so is there any point? :P
Quote from: dublinfella on April 22, 2007, 12:16:56 AM
Rovers never recieved money for the lease and well you know it.
Well, I don't. I got that information from other participants in this discussion, whose word I'd accept. Perhaps they're wrong. If they are, I wonder why this is the first time you've disputed the statement, given that I've re-stated it about three times in the last week in posts that you responded to. But maybe I'm wrong. I humbly apologise for besmirching the pristine financial record of Shamrock Rovers if I am. Perhaps this €1.5M arises because of confusion with the €1.5M-odd they got from the Dept. of Sport.
One way or the other, they have, to date, got at least this €1.5M-odd, whether it was for the return of the lease or for the building of a dozen-or-so concrete pillars (for which, I understand, the contractor is yet to be fully paid). We won't even bother our heads with the trifling €10,000 rent that seems to have been unpaid for the five years when they "owned" the lease.
It's now estimated that it will cost at least €11M to complete the stadium. Total cost – at least €12.5M. Shamrock Rovers' contribution to date (as proudly estimated by their spokesman recently)? €100,000! That equates to government funding of 99.2%. OK not quite a free stadium, then.
(That's being generous and taking your word that the lease was returned without payment. And ignoring the unpaid rent).
Quote
So your line Rovers are getting something from the state and thats a disgrace. Scandalous. The best thing to do is get that stadium for free for the GAA instead at a huge increased cost to the taxpayer. Because that is different somehow.
Surreal stuff.
Blast and snatter have demolished this argument pretty comprehensively. No need to add anything.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 21, 2007, 10:15:23 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on April 21, 2007, 02:27:00 PM
Dublinfella:
"The hand that feeds is being withdrawn"
there is a good chance that in 2 months time there will be a different gov, there is a near certainty that there will be a different minister for sport. john o donoghue 'promise' will have been kept to the best of his ability and the new guy will do his thing whatever that is. that is what tds 'won' in the high court.....
what guarantee do you have that anyone else will side with TD? no political party has supported the GAA position....
but at least you accept TD are only interested in delaying the project
tds are interested in getting access to a prime site in tallaght to promote gaa. i think they have a good chance of getting that in the medium term...
Quote from: snatter on April 22, 2007, 01:30:23 AM
QuoteThe best thing to do is get that stadium for free for the GAA instead at a huge increased cost to the taxpayer. Because that is different somehow.
No you muppet, the best thing is to build a municipal stadium for use by all of the major sports clubs in the municipality.
You just can't get it can you? this whole thing is purely about equal treatment and anything else you drag up is just a distraction.
Why should the GAA in south dublin stand by and watch any professional outfit get a free site and a free stadium?
How long do you expect locall gaa lottos to run in order to cover the cost of a similar site and stadium? About the next 1000 years I reckon.
If this was in Nirthern Ireland, this whole dispte would have been ruled illegal under equality grounds two years ago.
I can't believe its still dragging on. One stadium for everybody I say.
Its not a free site and its not a free stadium. Rovers paid the same amount for the site per acre the GAA paid in Rathcoole. But again, when the GAA get a cheap plot and make a balls of it its 'different'.
If you are so interested in 'equality' you will have no problem with Cork City playing in Pairc Ui Caoimh, a local authority owned pitch that has recieved capital funding? The proposed Kerry LOI side in Killarney, a local authority owned pitch that has recieved capital funding? Etc Etc. No doubt its 'different' when the GAA get exclusive use a council pitch.
One stadium for everybody? Are you saying rule 42 should go? Or is it that the GAA should get to choose what other sports facilities it gets to use and not have to reciprocate? Again, its 'different'.
Hypocricy is a horrible trait.
Swimming, golf, tennis and joyriding are major sports in the area too, while we are on the equality theme, why arent they allowed in? The council are entitled to make decisions about who gets to use certain facilities and they have decided the cost is prohibitave to include a full size GAA pitch, in much the same logic that they arent putting in a golf driving range, it doenst fit.
Stop pretending there is some idelogical anti-GAA force at play.
Here's a question for the assorted Rovers Heads, just to turn the debate around for a moment.
Based on previous posts from Rovers fans on this thread, apparently:
1 - Rovers have a hardcore of fans in their thousands who attend every home game - 3000 appears to be the figure bandied about most
2 - Even if we dismiss as nonsense this idea that they would "fill" this stadium 40 times a year, they have a lot of use for it.
3 - Rovers are now a fully fledged community organisation with considerable roots all across Tallaght
4 - Rovers have a dedicated hardcore of 400+ club members who were willing to fight tooth and nail to save the club
5 - Rovers' financial recording and auditting is now above reproach, with every i dotted and every t crossed.
6 - Rovers supporters clearly will not be comfortable with groundsharing with Dublin GAA and Thomas Davis in particular, if it works out like that. Whether that is the minority view is not relevant, since there clearly is a significant disruptive rump, and not an awful lot emanating by way of will to get rid of them.
7 - Rovers now have a huge amount of juvenile teams
Now with all that going on, here's something I don't get. GAA clubs across the land, many with less members than Rovers 400, certainly many with less members with that (supposed) amount of zeal, and certainly who could never dream of the regular cashflow associated with thousands of paying viewers every few weeks, TV money, sponsorshid from a huge DIY concern and everything else Rovers have going, have been able to get up off their arses and build their own facilitites. You know, those facilities ye boys like to give out about us getting grants for, after we've done 80% of the work ourselves.
Would any Rovers supporter here like to tell me why Rovers aren't just building their own ground, fundraising on the back of all the good will ye say he have, borrowing on the back of this cashflow (20 games * €15 * 3000 = €900k p.a.), selling ten year tickets to these hardcore fans, selling naming rights and applying for regular capital grants, the same way every other club does?
Ye clearly don't want to groundshare with the GAA, anyone with any sense can tell that this is a possibility after the election, ye're missing out on the financial security that comes with ye're own ground, and ye're now on the up after promotion.
Now this may seem harsh, but the only reasons I can think of for not wanting to do this are:
(1) The numbers ye've given for the amount of local support ye have is waffle - ye're actually not that popular around Tallaght at all.
(2) Ye're a shower of lazy hoors who can't be arsed.
(3) The psychology of begging in irish soccer is so deeply ingrained ye can't think of an alternative
(4) Ye know another bankruptcy is only a matter of time and God forbid all those people ye screwed over before like the taxpayers of Ireland would actually have a solid asset to seize.
Please enlighten me as to why ye aren't taking this course of action. Please note anything along the lines of "Do you know how much land costs in Dublin" and "our members have already contributed so much we can't look for more" is standard bullshit for people who don't want to come out and say number 2 above. Dublin GAA clubs do it all the time, plus land ain't exactly free everywhere else in the country.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 22, 2007, 01:50:56 PM
If you are so interested in 'equality' you will have no problem with Cork City playing in Pairc Ui Caoimh, a local authority owned pitch that has recieved capital funding?
Cork GAA are listed as the owners of Pairc ui Caoimh.
Im sure CCFC fans could fit easily into one section behind the goals. Cork City FC, if that's their name this year, is a privately owned soccer club, could surely fill out their own forms and submit them them to the Sports Council and apply for grants.
Loan Shark, there is zero, none, nada possibility of TD getting this facility redisigned for senior GAA. None. Banning a minister from your clubhouse is one surefire way of killing what little political capital you have left. If people are assuming a coalition win and Jimmy Denehan as minister for sport will automatically change the stance, they are being at best naive.
Another deliberate mistake is that Rovers are willing to share with the GAA, they just dont want the stadium, butchered for a senior pitch. And would you trust Kennedy after his email to Bailey stating that sharing would be a 'strategic' move with a view to having them removed in the medium term?
Shamrock Rovers offered to finish the stadium themselves when TD stuck their spoke in, but SDCC are committed to building the facility as is with Rovers as anchor tenents, Italian style. They accept that the previous board squandered their ownership of the faciltiy and have invested so much time and money into becoming part of the Tallaght community that it would be a massive blow to up sticks and leave now.
That and its vital for sports funding in this country that TD lose the case so they are fighting this as a proxy for the FAI and their right to build facilities with capital grants. And conversley, the GAA's right to use state lands (Park Ui Caoimh being an obvious example)
Which 80% have TD done in relation to Tallaght stadium by the way?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 22, 2007, 02:24:27 PM
Loan Shark, there is zero, none, nada possibility of TD getting this facility redisigned for senior GAA. None. Banning a minister from your clubhouse is one surefire way of killing what little political capital you have left. If people are assuming a coalition win and Jimmy Denehan as minister for sport will automatically change the stance, they are being at best naive.
Right, here's your first problem - most of this board knows me as a betting man - so I tend to call people on it when they make statements like this. If I was to stipulate then that you will lay me a bet, say €500 at sporting odds of 10/1, on an senior adult GAA match taking place in Tallaght Stadium within 6 months of any soccer kick off, bets void if the stadium never gets built, you will oblige me? I can fix it up through a betting office, betfair or a solicitor, whichever you prefer. I am deadly serious about this by the way - this is not a WUM. If it is in fact zero, none, nada possibility, then you can't lose.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 22, 2007, 02:24:27 PM
Shamrock Rovers offered to finish the stadium themselves when TD stuck their spoke in, but SDCC are committed to building the facility as is with Rovers as anchor tenents, Italian style. They accept that the previous board squandered their ownership of the faciltiy and have invested so much time and money into becoming part of the Tallaght community that it would be a massive blow to up sticks and leave now.
This is completely sidestepping the question. First of all I find it bizarre that Shamrock Rovers offered to pay for and complete the stadium with no government assistance and that has gone completely unmentioned - is that actually true?
Secondly, you haven't answered my question - I didn't ask you why the SDCC are acting as they are - I asked you why in the current circumstances Rovers don't get up off their holes and do it themselves, thereby securing their future.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 22, 2007, 02:24:27 PM
Which 80% have TD done in relation to Tallaght stadium by the way?
Of course they haven't - if they needed a stadium and were homeless, they would have done - this is about both providing an extra facility for well attended club games on the southside, offering some relief for overworked Kiltipper pitches and making sure they don't lose a competitive advantage in their attempts to sell gaelic games to the kids in the area. However they are not homeless, so that's not the issue.
Now enough of your "by the way" - why are Rovers not building their own home, why must the state do it?
And more importantly, how are we going to work this bet?
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 11:48:19 AM
Well you seem to be having trouble admitting something as simple as how you've totally contradicted yourself in your first post, so is there any point?
Okay - I'll re-phrase that. GAA heads ON THIS FORUM are very fond of generalization. The bile being hurled at Rovers here is unreal. So you all hate Rovers? Fair enough. But do you have to spread so much bullshit and lies??? Have you all got a problem with FACTS???
I'm bemused as to why GAA fans think that they can argue their way in to the stadium by throwing figures around. The SDCC have decided to build a municipal stadium for a multitude of uses and users - with Shamrock Rovers as anchor tenants, paying for the privilege of playing there - money that will cover the cost of running the stadium for all other users.
A perfectly logical (and legal) set-up. It's the same story in two other Dublin municipal stadiums - Morton and Irishtown - where the anchor tenants are athletics clubs.
Councils decide what to build and for whom. That's their job. It's called democracy.
Thomas Davis aren't simply arguing for inclusion - they are arguing for wanton destruction and the creation of a botched facility - in other words, a stupid and illogical waste of money.
If they get their way, you end up with a one-sided stadium (with car-parking space halved) and the fans of the anchor tenant club watching their team from a ludicrous distance. Fans standing at the front of the terracing behind the goal (assuming it's even built) will be 30 yards away from the pitch!
If a GAA pitch was compatible with a soccer pitch, then this discussion wouldn't be taking place. The stadium would be long-since finished. But they're not compatible.
Why can't GAA fans simply consider what Thomas Davis ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING - instead of trying to blind us all with extremely one-sided and highly suspect mathematics?
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 05:21:45 PM
Okay - I'll re-phrase that. GAA heads ON THIS FORUM are very fond of generalization. The bile being hurled at Rovers here is unreal. So you all hate Rovers? Fair enough. But do you have to spread so much bullshit and lies??? Have you all got a problem with FACTS???
Point out where anyone has posted bullshit and lies, please?
Quote from: stephenite on April 22, 2007, 05:24:22 PM
Point out where anyone has posted bullshit and lies, please?
Page 1 and 2 of this thread is a pretty good start.
I couldn't be bothered looking further than that, because being called a Mountjoy resident, a guttersnipe, a toerag, a lowlife, Ireland's Millwall, a nazi, a hooligan, a spanner, a begging homeless tr**p, thick, a gypsy, a tosser and a kn**ker..... was enough for me.
Fair enough there have been some bad comments made, but in relation to the issue,where has anyone posted any lies or bullshit??
There hasn't been any
Quote from: stephenite on April 22, 2007, 05:52:22 PM
Fair enough there have been some bad comments made, but in relation to the issue,where has anyone posted any lies or bullshit??
There hasn't been any
Ah yes - so the above comments are all true?
Thanks a lot.
(GAA fans are trying to make such stupid comments PART of the issue. As in - you're knackers, so you deserve nothing. Pathetic)
Hoop - any chance you could field the question I posted up above, about why Rovers don't just go and build it themselves? Dublinfella sidestepped it, so I'm guessing you being an avid Rovers fan will know the reason.
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 05:21:45 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 11:48:19 AM
Well you seem to be having trouble admitting something as simple as how you've totally contradicted yourself in your first post, so is there any point?
Okay - I'll re-phrase that. GAA heads ON THIS FORUM are very fond of generalization. The bile being hurled at Rovers here is unreal. So you all hate Rovers? Fair enough. But do you have to spread so much bullshit and lies??? Have you all got a problem with FACTS???
I had no problem with Rovers fans till their banner saying "THOMAS DAVIS GAC FCUK OFF AND DIE".
Interestingly not one Rovers fan on here has said that is out of order.
That hardly helps you come across as a reasonable bunch of people.
The antics the other night about yermans wife don't help
I've no problem with facts whatsoever.
Are you suggesting the high court judge had a problem with facts as well when granting the judicial review?
Or could it be, shock horror, that you are so close to Rovers that you're unable to think rationally bout this whole process?
Dublinfella is very selective about which facts he 1) shares with us or 2) choses to believe.
He was oh so sure that Thomas Davis woul dbe laughed out of court, now he's predicting the outcome of the judicial review.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 22, 2007, 05:59:17 PM
Hoop - any chance you could field the question I posted up above, about why Rovers don't just go and build it themselves? Dublinfella sidestepped it, so I'm guessing you being an avid Rovers fan will know the reason.
Probably because we can't afford it at present, having spent loads rescuing our club from past incompetence - and also because the SDCC made an offer that sounded quite good.
Many clubs - whether GAA or soccer - have land as an asset. Once you have that, you're in a position to deal. We don't have that. Louis Kilcoyne sold that unfortunately. If we had it to sell now, we could build the best stadium in the country. Well - apart from Croke Park.....
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 06:14:44 PM
I had no problem with Rovers fans till their banner saying "THOMAS DAVIS GAC FCUK OFF AND DIE".
Interestingly not one Rovers fan on here has said that is out of order.
And I won't either. It is not for the aggressor to decide how the extremely pissed-off and totally frustrated victim should react.
Rovers fans are VERY, VERY, VERY pissed off that a GAA club is trying to destroy a stadium intended for our use. Can you not understand that?
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 06:20:41 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 06:14:44 PM
I had no problem with Rovers fans till their banner saying "THOMAS DAVIS GAC FCUK OFF AND DIE".
Interestingly not one Rovers fan on here has said that is out of order.
And I won't either. It is not for the aggressor to decide how the extremely pissed-off and totally frustrated victim should react.
Rovers fans are VERY, VERY, VERY pissed off that a GAA club is trying to destroy a stadium intended for our use. Can you not understand that?
victim.
as someone who has some sympathy for your cause, the word victim is a bit strong isn't it.
Tayto. Sent you a pm on res dubs.
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 06:15:38 PM
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 22, 2007, 05:59:17 PM
Hoop - any chance you could field the question I posted up above, about why Rovers don't just go and build it themselves? Dublinfella sidestepped it, so I'm guessing you being an avid Rovers fan will know the reason.
Probably because we can't afford it at present, having spent loads rescuing our club from past incompetence - and also because the SDCC made an offer that sounded quite good.
Many clubs - whether GAA or soccer - have land as an asset. Once you have that, you're in a position to deal. We don't have that. Louis Kilcoyne sold that unfortunately. If we had it to sell now, we could build the best stadium in the country. Well - apart from Croke Park.....
According to figures quoted from loads of members on this thread, you have almost 900k in regular attendance money coming in each year, close ties to the Tallaght community (a community of around 100,000 people) and a driven hard working members group who are willing to work for the club.
Add in potential long term sales etc and you could afford it - if ye put some fundraising work in. Ye're annual budget is more than that of most counties in rural Ireland - it easily could be done, if all these things are as ye say.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 22, 2007, 03:13:26 PM
Right, here's your first problem - most of this board knows me as a betting man - so I tend to call people on it when they make statements like this. If I was to stipulate then that you will lay me a bet, say €500 at sporting odds of 10/1, on an senior adult GAA match taking place in Tallaght Stadium within 6 months of any soccer kick off, bets void if the stadium never gets built, you will oblige me? I can fix it up through a betting office, betfair or a solicitor, whichever you prefer. I am deadly serious about this by the way - this is not a WUM. If it is in fact zero, none, nada possibility, then you can't lose.
PM me, you are on.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 22, 2007, 03:13:26 PM
This is completely sidestepping the question. First of all I find it bizarre that Shamrock Rovers offered to pay for and complete the stadium with no government assistance and that has gone completely unmentioned - is that actually true?
Secondly, you haven't answered my question - I didn't ask you why the SDCC are acting as they are - I asked you why in the current circumstances Rovers don't get up off their holes and do it themselves, thereby securing their future.
Why should they? they did that 18 months ago and got a legally binding deal in place that suits everyone, the council get a revenue generating asset, Rovers get a ground, the community gets a stadium. just because a GAA club takes the hump they should give up? get real LS.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 22, 2007, 03:13:26 PM
Of course they haven't - if they needed a stadium and were homeless, they would have done - this is about both providing an extra facility for well attended club games on the southside, offering some relief for overworked Kiltipper pitches and making sure they don't lose a competitive advantage in their attempts to sell gaelic games to the kids in the area. However they are not homeless, so that's not the issue.
ao its ok to act the magpie because they dont 'need' the stadium? jesus wept, listen to yourself.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 22, 2007, 03:13:26 PM
Now enough of your "by the way" - why are Rovers not building their own home, why must the state do it?
Must? It was the Council who approached Rovers with the deal. They chose this course of action. A more pertinant question is why the GAA in the area hasnt approached the SDCC when they realised that there were sweeties to be had.
You are in work and a collegue wanders in an asks the boss for a raise and gets more than he expected.
Do you a: complain to your bosses boss and try and have your collegues raise stopped or
b: get in there yourself and see what you can get?
QuoteA perfectly logical (and legal) set-up. It's the same story in two other Dublin municipal stadiums - Morton and Irishtown - where the anchor tenants are athletics clubs.
Neither of these athletic clubs host host professional or semi professional sports teams. If they did then i would also have an issue.
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 05:23:21 PM
Councils decide what to build and for whom. That's their job. It's called democracy.
And people are entitled to question the veracity of those decisions in the courts. It's called the rule of law, which is intrinsic to any democracy.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 22, 2007, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 22, 2007, 03:13:26 PM
Right, here's your first problem - most of this board knows me as a betting man - so I tend to call people on it when they make statements like this. If I was to stipulate then that you will lay me a bet, say €500 at sporting odds of 10/1, on an senior adult GAA match taking place in Tallaght Stadium within 6 months of any soccer kick off, bets void if the stadium never gets built, you will oblige me? I can fix it up through a betting office, betfair or a solicitor, whichever you prefer. I am deadly serious about this by the way - this is not a WUM. If it is in fact zero, none, nada possibility, then you can't lose.
PM me, you are on.
Message sent. Doffed cap to you sir - any man who is willing to put €5k on his opinion, even if I disagree with it, has an opinion worthy of respect.
Senior game on a full length GAA pitch of course?
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 06:20:41 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 06:14:44 PM
I had no problem with Rovers fans till their banner saying "THOMAS DAVIS GAC FCUK OFF AND DIE".
Interestingly not one Rovers fan on here has said that is out of order.
And I won't either. It is not for the aggressor to decide how the extremely pissed-off and totally frustrated victim should react.
Rovers fans are VERY, VERY, VERY pissed off that a GAA club is trying to destroy a stadium intended for our use. Can you not understand that?
Funny, i thought a GAA club was trying to get access to a municpal stadium that is being built in their area, I didnt realise they were trying to destroy anything. Is there any chance you're being a bit melodramatic.
Victum? Destroy? Will you give over.
The way you've chosen to word that post says everything we need to know about your incapacity to see Thomas Davis's point of view.
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 08:45:11 PM
Funny, i thought a GAA club was trying to get access to a municpal stadium that is being built in their area, I didnt realise they were trying to destroy anything.
One question.
Answer yes or no please.
Is it okay, that in a stadium planned for many things but with a soccer club as anchor tenants, that the fans behind the goals for a soccer match should be 30 yards away from the pitch?
Just answer the question and stop talking crap.
QuoteIs it okay, that in a stadium planned for many things but with a soccer club as anchor tenants, that the fans behind the goals for a soccer match should be 30 yards away from the pitch?
Yes, same as a soccer pitch with an athletic track around it or same as for example the Olympic Stadium in Rome.
For the record, a soccer pitchs max length can be 120 metres while a GAA can be as short as 130 metres so it doesn't have to be 30 yards
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 08:45:11 PM
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 06:20:41 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 06:14:44 PM
I had no problem with Rovers fans till their banner saying "THOMAS DAVIS GAC FCUK OFF AND DIE".
Interestingly not one Rovers fan on here has said that is out of order.
And I won't either. It is not for the aggressor to decide how the extremely pissed-off and totally frustrated victim should react.
Rovers fans are VERY, VERY, VERY pissed off that a GAA club is trying to destroy a stadium intended for our use. Can you not understand that?
Funny, i thought a GAA club was trying to get access to a municpal stadium that is being built in their area, I didnt realise they were trying to destroy anything. Is there any chance you're being a bit melodramatic.
Victum? Destroy? Will you give over.
The way you've chosen to word that post says everything we need to know about your incapacity to see Thomas Davis's point of view.
the email to bailey the indo ran says otherwise.....
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 09:04:16 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 08:45:11 PM
Funny, i thought a GAA club was trying to get access to a municpal stadium that is being built in their area, I didnt realise they were trying to destroy anything.
One question.
Answer yes or no please.
Is it okay, that in a stadium planned for many things but with a soccer club as anchor tenants, that the fans behind the goals for a soccer match should be 30 yards away from the pitch?
Just answer the question and stop talking crap.
Is it okay? yes, of course it's okay. Frankly I'm not too concerned about the atmosphere at Rovers games.
The day you build your own stadium is the day you get to choose how far you sit from the pitch. If you're getting use of a facility for next to nothing then you don't get to choose the ideal distance the crowd are from the pitch. Do you honestly think that should be a deciding factor for who gets to use a municipal stadium? If so then you're more blinkered then I thought from your previous post.
There are soccer clubs all around Europe sharing stadia with athletics tracks, I'd sure it's not ideal for atmosphere.
Quote from: blast05 on April 22, 2007, 09:14:29 PM
QuoteIs it okay, that in a stadium planned for many things but with a soccer club as anchor tenants, that the fans behind the goals for a soccer match should be 30 yards away from the pitch?
Yes, same as a soccer pitch with an athletic track around it or same as for example the Olympic Stadium in Rome.
For the record, a soccer pitchs max length can be 120 metres while a GAA can be as short as 130 metres so it doesn't have to be 30 yards
The GAA pitch that Thomas Davis want is 140 yards in length. Add on run-off and it is 160 yards.
I have the plans - I know what I'm talking about.
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 10:01:33 PM
Is it okay? yes, of course it's okay. Frankly I'm not too concerned about the atmosphere at Rovers games.
The day you build your own stadium is the day you get to choose how far you sit from the pitch. If you're getting use of a facility for next to nothing then you don't get to choose the ideal distance the crowd are from the pitch. Do you honestly think that should be a deciding factor for who gets to use a municipal stadium? If so then you're more blinkered then I thought from your previous post.
There are soccer clubs all around Europe sharing stadia with athletics tracks, I'd sure it's not ideal for atmosphere.
Thank you for your bigoted, selfish and misinformed view.
The fact that some stadiums are less than optimal (and incidentally, an athletics track DOES NOT leave you 30 yards away from the pitch) is no argument for Thomas Davis butchering a stadium they don't need, merely because of petty spite, hatred and fear.
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 10:01:33 PM
Is it okay? yes, of course it's okay. Frankly I'm not too concerned about the atmosphere at Rovers games.
The day you build your own stadium is the day you get to choose how far you sit from the pitch. If you're getting use of a facility for next to nothing then you don't get to choose the ideal distance the crowd are from the pitch. Do you honestly think that should be a deciding factor for who gets to use a municipal stadium? If so then you're more blinkered then I thought from your previous post.
There are soccer clubs all around Europe sharing stadia with athletics tracks, I'd sure it's not ideal for atmosphere.
Thank you for your bigoted, selfish and misinformed view.
The fact that some stadiums are less than optimal (and incidentally, an athletics track DOES NOT leave you 30 yards away from the pitch) is no argument for Thomas Davis butchering a stadium they don't need, merely because of petty spite, hatred and fear.
you are some tosser, are all rovers fans the same? or are you all just the one? just like dublinfella and good vibrations your first few posts are reasonable and then the shite comes out. tds are not doing this out of petty spite, hatred or fear but because they want to promote gaa in tallaght. as for your penniless ophran of a club most people would consider 20 years of bumming around a disaster, you lot see it as a badge of honor. another year or two wont kill you....
Quote from: magickingdom on April 22, 2007, 11:12:25 PM
tds are not doing this out of petty spite, hatred or fear but because they want to promote gaa in tallaght .
So???
I'd like to promote ice-hockey in Tallaght.
Does that mean that I should take legal action???
GAA heads are so far up their anal passages that they simply do not realize that they have NO MORE RIGHTS than anyone else.
Get used to it.
"GAA heads are so far up their anal passages that they simply do not realize that they have NO MORE RIGHTS than anyone else."
no we dont and as your so into rights and your earlier comments on democracy you should be quite happy to let the legal process run its course.
QuoteI'd like to promote ice-hockey in Tallaght.
Does that mean that I should take legal action???
No, but as i said before re ice hockey, that it should be possible to get an ice hockey arena for a professional franchise built and paid for with tax payers money in Dublin if SR's logic is employed
Quote from: magickingdom on April 22, 2007, 11:34:22 PM
"GAA heads are so far up their anal passages that they simply do not realize that they have NO MORE RIGHTS than anyone else."
no we dont and as your so into rights and your earlier comments on democracy you should be quite happy to let the legal process run its course.
Perhaps you're right. But the fact that the legal process might take three years or longer doesn't fill me with optimism.
I'm also wondering why Thomas Davis don't seem overly happy in letting legal process run its course - although it was their idea in the first place.
Their current campaign - which includes demanding that Bertie Ahern should overrule O'Donoghue - smacks of a growing realization that they don't stand a chance in Judicial Review.
Rovers fans would just LOVE to have this farce taken care of - but it was Thomas Davis who last December tried to have the matter put off for ANOTHER YEAR due to a contrived technicality.
Quote from: blast05 on April 22, 2007, 11:39:16 PM
QuoteI'd like to promote ice-hockey in Tallaght.
Does that mean that I should take legal action???
No, but as i said before re ice hockey, that it should be possible to get an ice hockey arena for a professional franchise built and paid for with tax payers money in Dublin if SR's logic is employed
Ah - here we go again. Some of the favoured expressions of the GAA apologists - "professional franchise".
Sounds great, doesn't it???
Pity that professionalism in GAA is hidden (though very badly hidden) and not out in the open such as with soccer and rugby.
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 11:56:49 PM
Pity that professionalism in GAA is hidden (though very badly hidden) and not out in the open such as with soccer and rugby.
And there it is, the last last resort to innuendo and lies. Can you give me any examples, concrete examples of professionalism in the GAA
at the moment?Thomas Davis are most certainly not a professional outfit, much less a failed professional outfit
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 10:23:12 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 22, 2007, 10:01:33 PM
Is it okay? yes, of course it's okay. Frankly I'm not too concerned about the atmosphere at Rovers games.
The day you build your own stadium is the day you get to choose how far you sit from the pitch. If you're getting use of a facility for next to nothing then you don't get to choose the ideal distance the crowd are from the pitch. Do you honestly think that should be a deciding factor for who gets to use a municipal stadium? If so then you're more blinkered then I thought from your previous post.
There are soccer clubs all around Europe sharing stadia with athletics tracks, I'd sure it's not ideal for atmosphere.
Thank you for your bigoted, selfish and misinformed view.
The fact that some stadiums are less than optimal (and incidentally, an athletics track DOES NOT leave you 30 yards away from the pitch) is no argument for Thomas Davis butchering a stadium they don't need, merely because of petty spite, hatred and fear.
hahahahahahhahaaaa ah hoop that's hilarious. Honestly. ha ahhhahahaha ....
So tell me, are Irish soccer fans who boo rangers players bigots? Oh no, let me guess, they're a tiny minority? Right. Same as those hateful fookers taunting yerman about his dead wife that the stewards did nothing about. But i'm a bigot because i dont care about the atmosphere at rovers matches. Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously coming out with that crud when you wont denounce the intellectual elite who tell a local club to "f**k off and die" when they fight for their right to get access to a municipal facility in their area. You couldnt make this shit up. but boo hoo you expect us to care if you wind up sitting further from the pitch then you'd like. Sing for it.
The fact you couldnt spot or admit the utter contradiction in your initial post was a tell tale sign but you're really showing your true colours now sunshine.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 01:04:18 AM
But i'm a bigot because i dont care about the atmosphere at rovers matches
Correct.
25 pages into the thread and the most vociferous contributor states that he doesn't care about THE CENTRAL ISSUE.
You couldn't make this up.
You have posted nothing at all of worth in this thread. No facts, no detail, no logical argument, no nothing. Just bluster, bullshit and cheap insults. I know the internet is full of idiots, but you're seriously overdoing it.
The central issue in a public funding scandal and serial debt-defaulting scam is the atmosphere at Shamrock Rovers' matches!!!
And you talk about things you couldn't make up.
Anyway, having seen that banner, and heard about the unvelievable scummery last Friday night, I know all I care to know about the "atmosphere" at Shamrock Rovers matches.
Quote from: Hardy on April 23, 2007, 09:11:05 AM
The central issue in a public funding scandal and serial debt-defaulting scam is the atmosphere at Shamrock Rovers' matches!!!
That was his way of describing the issue. In correct terms, the central issue is that soccer fans will be nowhere near the pitch. Those behind the goals will be 30 yards away. But why am I bothering to explain this when fans of the Grab All Association simply don't care???
An excellent way of debating lads. When it gets to the central issue, you just say "I don't care about that".
Pathetic.
QuoteAh - here we go again. Some of the favoured expressions of the GAA apologists - "professional franchise".
Sounds great, doesn't it???
Pity that professionalism in GAA is hidden (though very badly hidden) and not out in the open such as with soccer and rugby
I'm sorry, but i ain't an apologist for anything or if i have been then show me where - and where exactly is the professionalism in the GAA that you refer to ?
Re the ice-hockey, I was justing using an example of what should be allowed happen if SR can get their ground built for free. Correct me on this one if i am wrong.
Can anyone from SR clarify for me what the rent the major tenant will be if they get the stadium as they wish ?
And also, if the only issue of concern to SR were the 30 yards behind the goal, then i am sure a simple compromise could be reached - TD to have say a 135m pitch instead of 140m with only a 5m run-off behind each goal while SR could lengthen their pitch to the max soccer dimensions meaning you would only have 12.5m behind each goal - somewhat less than what either Derry City or Waterford United currently have i would say.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 09:17:09 AM
... the central issue is that soccer fans will be nowhere near the pitch. Those behind the goals will be 30 yards away. But why am I bothering to explain this when fans of the Grab All Association simply don't care???
An excellent way of debating lads. When it gets to the central issue, you just say "I don't care about that".
Pathetic.
Grab All Association – hilarious, original and, of course, unwittingly ironic, given the source.
You're right, though. We don't care and you're not going to garner much support around here for a campaign to improve the "atmosphere" at the two-men-and-a-dog occasions of the Eircom League. I'd have thought even a member of the "olé, olé, but boo if he's a protestant" movement would have enough cop on to know that.
And anyway, as regards the central plank of your risible campaign against putting fans 30 yards behind the goals – did you notice the recent soccer games in Croke Park? If it's unacceptable for soccer fans to be 30 yards away from the pitch (too far to throw a bottle?), what was all the clamour to get into Croke Park about?
As you might say yourself, you couldn't make it up.
Quote from: Hardy on April 23, 2007, 09:33:22 AM
did you notice the recent soccer games in Croke Park? If it's unacceptable for soccer fans to be 30 yards away from the pitch (too far to throw a bottle?), what was all the clamour to get into Croke Park about?
Ah, good - so you noticed that, did you?
The farce of having a soccer pitch out in the middle of a vast Croke Park was of course the best argument AGAINST butchering Tallaght Stadium.
Far from optimal and - thankfully - very temporary, unlike what Thomas Davis envisage for Tallaght.
You don't get the point, do you? Nobody here (or in the GAA, or the government, or SDCC, or in the courts) gives a t**ker's toss how far behind the goal your supporters have to stand, be it to flaunt their obscene banners, boo protestants, throw bottles or (and I'm still reeling at the very thought of this one) revel loudly in a player's bereavement. Seems to me the further away they are the better.
Just in case you still don't get it - if you want to court any sympathy here, you might consider changing tack from the 30-yard-injustice approach.
Quote from: Hardy on April 23, 2007, 09:46:41 AM
You don't get the point, do you? Nobody here (or in the GAA, or the government, or SDCC, or in the courts) gives a t**ker's toss how far behind the goal your supporters have to stand, be it to flaunt their obscene banners, boo protestants, throw bottles or (and I'm still reeling at the very thought of this one) revel loudly in a player's bereavement. Seems to me the further away they are the better.
Just in case you still don't get it - if you want to court any sympathy here, you might consider changing tack from the 30-yard-injustice approach.
Dont forget throwing pigs heads at ex players.
And dont ye dare deny it! >:(
Okay, so nobody here cares about the central issue. Good, at least I know where I stand.
Now excuse me while I go and talk to the wall.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 10:00:16 AM
Okay, so nobody here cares about the central issue. Good, at least I know where I stand.
Now excuse me while I go and talk to the wall.
The "central issue" ????
This thread is entitled "Shamrock Rovers Ultras" and started with a picture of Rovers fans holding up a banner saying "Thomas Davis GAC, f**k off and die"
Now sincere apologies if we speak about Rovers fans behaving badly! ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 23, 2007, 10:02:40 AM
The "central issue" ????
This thread is entitled "Shamrock Rovers Ultras" and started with a picture of Rovers fans holding up a banner saying "Thomas Davis GAC, f**k off and die"
Oh alright - let's just pretend that all those posts about the stadium don't exist, shall we???
It must be very hard work moving those goal-posts to and fro all the time.....
The post about the stadium DO exist, dont be smart.
But the "central issue" on this thread, as in any thread, should be the title subject.
So sincere apologies for straying from what you want to talk about to discuss the title subject ::)
Or do you want to just keep quiet on this issue as holding up banners saying "f**k off and die" shows the scummy element of the Rovers support?
Now go ahead and counter that by saying "the gaa is scummy because........."
Wake me up when your done.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 10:00:16 AM
Okay, so nobody here cares about the central issue. Good, at least I know where I stand.
Ker-chinnnng!
"Central issue"
:D :D :D :D :D
Quoteif the only issue of concern to SR were the 30 yards behind the goal, then i am sure a simple compromise could be reached - TD to have say a 135m pitch instead of 140m with only a 5m run-off behind each goal while SR could lengthen their pitch to the max soccer dimensions meaning you would only have 12.5m behind each goal - somewhat less than what either Derry City or Waterford United currently have i would say.
Allowing that we for a moment entertain that the 30 yds is the central issue, then have you any comment re my post above from earlier on ?
So thats the central issue??? Funny the minister hasnt mentioned it to date.
If the average attendance at a rovers match is 1000-3000 then surely everyone will take the good seats along the sideline.
or is the "central issue" for those special occasions that the stadium will be full?
but on the other hand it's not a central issue whether an entire sport [two sports really] is allowed into the stadium, that is apparently the GAA trying to destroy the stadium. How biased can you get. hilarious.
You claim to have the plans for Thomas Davis's pitch hoop? Are these the plans Dublinfella says they refuse to show anyone?
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 10:32:33 AM
You claim to have the plans for Thomas Davis's pitch hoop? Are these the plans Dublinfella says they refuse to show anyone?
Nope - I have plans that were in the public domain that clearly show what putting in a GAA pitch would entail. Thomas Davis allege to have drawn up other plans which show that only minor alterations are required. This is physically impossible however - which is probably the reason that they won't show the alleged plans to anyone.
Quote from: blast05 on April 23, 2007, 10:21:13 AM
Allowing that we for a moment entertain that the 30 yds is the central issue, then have you any comment re my post above from earlier on ?
Thomas Davis want 160 yards including run-off. I don't know why 10 yards run-off is required behind GAA posts - possibly because 5 yards would involve the ball going into the crowd nearly every time a point is scored???
Extending a soccer pitch to be as long as possible is no solution. You can have that in the likes of Wembley perhaps, but expecting a team to play on an enormous pitch week in, week out is hardly a solution.
Working out some way to reduce the gap to say 25 yards is hardly a solution either. You design a stadium based on it's primary use - and not to facilitate a very occasional use.
I actually felt physically sick when I read that abuse meted out to Webb over the weekend. Absolutely vile. I actually knew his brother a few years back and he's a good skin. I await the banning of the culprits but fear I'll be waiting a long time. I'm sure someone knows who they are. I wonder did any of our contributers here who heard it do anything to stop it or identify those who were doing it?
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 11:13:38 AM
Working out some way to reduce the gap to say 25 yards is hardly a solution either. You design a stadium based on it's primary use - and not to facilitate a very occasional use.
Again i disagree. You design a municipal stadium so it will get the mavimum useage from the community. Not to suit one tennant, even if they're the anchor tennant.
I would be interested to know how you'd feel about a rugby club using the site? As they'd ruin the playing surface.
I'm sure a compromise could be reached on the size, I see no problem with a soccer club having a big pitch in soccer terms.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 12:20:09 PM
Again i disagree. You design a municipal stadium so it will get the mavimum useage from the community. Not to suit one tennant, even if they're the anchor tennant.
So do you want all the existing municipal stadiums pulled down and re-built to include GAA??? Why aren't full-sized GAA pitches already included in municipal stadiums??? Because they are TOO big and destroy the stadiums for everyone else - and because the GAA already has more stadiums than it knows what to do with.
It would be helpful if Thomas Davis were to finally reveal their amazing plans - but I won't hold my breath.
Rugby would be fine - as long as the state of the pitch is carefully managed.
Not really interested in getting into the in's and out of Thomas Davis vs Shamrock Rovers, but the issue of the amount of space left behind the goals is a load of balls in my opinion. How many clubs in Europe play in municiple stadiums that incorporate running tracks? Having been to a number of games in such grounds I can't say it effected the atmosphere. You'd have to ask the players how they felt about it, but I imagine been out of range of missles isn't something they regret. For instance one club I'm very familiar with is DIF in Stockholm Sweden. They have been league champions 3 times in the last 5/6 years and play in Stockholms Olympic Stadium, built for the 1912 Olympics, incorporating a running track. Hasn't done them any harm, excellent atmosphere, successful. In support terms they are bigger than Shamrock Rovers in a comparable league, but success and the qua;ity of the entertainment brings fans as ever.
http://www.dif.se/english/index.asp?action=homeground&sub=1
Seems to be a trend here, Hoop argues for a while then goes, then Dublinfella, then Good Relations,
Does anyone think maybe they are working "shifts" on here to argue their just and noble cause? :D :D :D
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 11:46:32 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on April 22, 2007, 11:34:22 PM
Their current campaign - which includes demanding that Bertie Ahern should overrule O'Donoghue - smacks of a growing realization that they don't stand a chance in Judicial Review.
than why was it granted? do you even know what a judicial review is? jrs can only be granted on a point of law so tds obiviously have a case. this whole
thing can be sorted out in a short period of time if rovers are willing to compromise. if there was a brain in the gene pool of the rovers supporters they would at least meet tds. their not even willing to do that unless tds drop their case. its a farce alright and rovers are playing a full part...
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 12:36:48 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 12:20:09 PM
Again i disagree. You design a municipal stadium so it will get the mavimum useage from the community. Not to suit one tennant, even if they're the anchor tennant.
So do you want all the existing municipal stadiums pulled down and re-built to include GAA??? Why aren't full-sized GAA pitches already included in municipal stadiums??? Because they are TOO big and destroy the stadiums for everyone else - and because the GAA already has more stadiums than it knows what to do with.
It would be helpful if Thomas Davis were to finally reveal their amazing plans - but I won't hold my breath.
There you go being all melodramatic again. There are municipal stadia all over europe with running tracks and the like around them, i find it hard to believe a GAA pitch would leave you much further away then a running track does. Did those soccer clubs insist that athletics were left out because they'd destroy "their" stadium? It dosent help the atmosphere but i'm sure it doesnt destroy it either, or make the stadia useless for soccer. You can't be picky about the dimensions becuase you blew your chance to develop the site yourselves. A municipal stadia should be built to cater for the whole community. to say it would destroy the stadium for soccer is simply not true. Are you saying Croke Park is useless for the internationals? Was it useless for the Rugby? seemed to be a great atmosphere for the rugby despite the rugby pitch being small enough compared to the GAA pitch. My friend, if that is your only arguement them you've not got much to go on.
Didn't bother Shamrock Rovers too much when they were played in Morton Stadium in Santry, that had a big running track all the way around it.
Well apparently the GAA pitch TD want will leave you further away fromt he pitch then a running track. Which sounds like balderdash to me.
QuoteYou design a stadium based on it's primary use - and not to facilitate a very occasional use.
Yes. If you're the one designing your own stadium to be built with your own money for your own use. (I realise these are strange concepts, but stick with me).
If, on the other hand, you're a homeless, begging socer club looking for free assembly place for offensive morons and condoning their use of offensive displays, well then you take what you get.
Quote from: Hardy on April 23, 2007, 01:11:38 PM
If, on the other hand, you're a homeless, begging socer club looking for free assembly place for offensive morons and condoning their use of offensive displays, well then you take what you get.
Brilliant argument. Well done. Very constructive.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 01:17:54 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 23, 2007, 01:11:38 PM
If, on the other hand, you're a homeless, begging socer club looking for free assembly place for offensive morons and condoning their use of offensive displays, well then you take what you get.
Brilliant argument. Well done. Very constructive.
Its 100% correct Hoop.
Doesnt look pretty but facts are facts.
Quote from: stephenite on April 23, 2007, 01:03:43 PM
Didn't bother Shamrock Rovers too much when they were played in Morton Stadium in Santry
Says who??? By far the worst stadium ever used for soccer in the country.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 01:20:42 PM
Quote from: stephenite on April 23, 2007, 01:03:43 PM
Didn't bother Shamrock Rovers too much when they were played in Morton Stadium in Santry
Says who??? By far the worst stadium ever used for soccer in the country.
And there's the rub, ye still used it because nobody else would have ye. Same as ye'll use Tallaght along with the extra pitch dimensions once the court tells ye to. It's not like you're in much of a position to bargain now, is it?
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 23, 2007, 01:20:17 PM
Its 100% correct Hoop.
Doesnt look pretty but facts are facts.
It's because of bile such as this that the thread is going around in circles.
So there were 3,000 morons last Friday in Tolka - just because two or three lowlife who couldn't give a damn about the club turn up???
Facts my arse.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 01:01:51 PM
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 12:36:48 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 12:20:09 PM
Again i disagree. You design a municipal stadium so it will get the mavimum useage from the community. Not to suit one tennant, even if they're the anchor tennant.
So do you want all the existing municipal stadiums pulled down and re-built to include GAA??? Why aren't full-sized GAA pitches already included in municipal stadiums??? Because they are TOO big and destroy the stadiums for everyone else - and because the GAA already has more stadiums than it knows what to do with.
It would be helpful if Thomas Davis were to finally reveal their amazing plans - but I won't hold my breath.
There you go being all melodramatic again. There are municipal stadia all over europe with running tracks and the like around them, i find it hard to believe a GAA pitch would leave you much further away then a running track does. Did those soccer clubs insist that athletics were left out because they'd destroy "their" stadium? It dosent help the atmosphere but i'm sure it doesnt destroy it either, or make the stadia useless for soccer. You can't be picky about the dimensions becuase you blew your chance to develop the site yourselves. A municipal stadia should be built to cater for the whole community. to say it would destroy the stadium for soccer is simply not true. Are you saying Croke Park is useless for the internationals? Was it useless for the Rugby? seemed to be a great atmosphere for the rugby despite the rugby pitch being small enough compared to the GAA pitch. My friend, if that is your only arguement them you've not got much to go on.
Without getting into the whole debate. The issue of a running track (or a dog track) is totally irrlevant to the discussion. A running track is 10 metres at each end and down the sides of the pitch, it is also incorpoated into the design for the stadium with steeper stands etc. A GAA pitch is 30 metres extra at each end (plus any runoff) and 15 metres extra at each side (plus any runoff). Hardly a fair comparison.
Would you like to play Gaelic games on a pitch that was 60 metres longer and 30 metres wider than was needed?
(http://niskins.com/images/stadium3.GIF)
This is a graphic showing the max/min sizes (light and dark) for each of the codes.
Quote from: stephenite on April 23, 2007, 01:23:00 PM
And there's the rub, ye still used it because nobody else would have ye. Same as ye'll use Tallaght along with the extra pitch dimensions once the court tells ye to. It's not like you're in much of a position to bargain now, is it?
It was used because it seemed like a good idea at the time. It turned out to be a major mistake because the fans hated it and stayed away in droves.
Do you actually KNOW anything about what you write - or do you just make up whatever you feel like???
"
Quote from: SammyG on April 23, 2007, 01:24:40 PM
Would you like to play Gaelic games on a pitch that was 60 metres longer and 30 metres wider than was needed?
Sammy in fairness though, Shamrock Rovers wont have to play on a pitch larger than their own code requires.
Same as in Croke park, it will be a normal soccer size pitch, with extra grass areas outside of the pitch area.
Plus you can add onto the 10 metres for the running track as there would need to be a gapp of a few more metres between the pitchside and the tracl (remember Lee Chapman for Leeds), not 30 metres by any means, but more than ten.
Sammy, I'd even say that graphic is underestimating the GAA Pitch vis a vis the Rugby Pitch. The 'in goal' areas behind the posts can be up to 20 metres deep, minimum of 10. That means a rugby pitch is a maximum of 140 metres, minimum of 120. A GAA pitch will be about 150 metres long.
Are you allowing for the curved corners of the runnig track? with a little run off either side of the track and soccer pitch inside it? The soccer pitch didnt seem that far away when I was in Croke Park for the internationals - strange place to go for an anti-soccer bigot eh?
Judging by that graphic lansdowne road should be useless for soccer as well.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 23, 2007, 01:31:38 PM
Same as in Croke park, it will be a normal soccer size pitch, with extra grass areas outside of the pitch area
Extra grass??? Enough grass to build a feckin' housing estate more like.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 01:29:38 PM
Quote from: stephenite on April 23, 2007, 01:23:00 PM
And there's the rub, ye still used it because nobody else would have ye. Same as ye'll use Tallaght along with the extra pitch dimensions once the court tells ye to. It's not like you're in much of a position to bargain now, is it?
It was used because it seemed like a good idea at the time. It turned out to be a major mistake because the fans hated it and stayed away in droves.
Do you actually KNOW anything about what you write - or do you just make up whatever you feel like???
Now,now, The Shams played quite a few games there, and God knows did enough damage in the Swiss Cottage,and by that I mean supporters causing actual damage to property and Nortside heads as opposed to their own liver. This in itself proves that at least the hardcore scum, sorry Ultras managed to make the journey
Anyway, any chance of answering my question and showing you me some concrete examples of professionalism in the GAA that you mentioned yesterday? Or, is this another thing that you spew than choose to ignore once you're pulled up on it? Any you have the audacity to accuse me not KNOWING what I write.
C'mon son - if you're gonna throw accuastions about at least have the maners to back yourself up. Otherwise you'll just look foolish
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 01:05:07 PM
Well apparently the GAA pitch TD want will leave you further away fromt he pitch then a running track. Which sounds like balderdash to me.
Although to play soccer on a GAA-sized pitch undoubtedly makes the view worse for soccer spectators and impacts upon the atmosphere, I didn't think that it was these factors
per se to which Rovers were objecting when asked to enlarge the pitch. Nor is it anti-GAA sentiment generally, since they have stated they are quite happy to allow under-age GAA games to be played (these use a smaller pitch than senior games).
Rather, I thought that incorporating a much larger playing area for (adult) GAA would so reduce the area available for grandstands that the spectator capacity would become totally inadequate for Rovers' needs.
(P.S. This is merely a point of information, not an attempt to intervene in the argument ;))
Quote from: magickingdom on April 23, 2007, 12:55:08 PM
Quote from: hoop on April 22, 2007, 11:46:32 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on April 22, 2007, 11:34:22 PM
Their current campaign - which includes demanding that Bertie Ahern should overrule O'Donoghue - smacks of a growing realization that they don't stand a chance in Judicial Review.
than why was it granted? do you even know what a judicial review is? jrs can only be granted on a point of law so tds obiviously have a case. this whole
thing can be sorted out in a short period of time if rovers are willing to compromise. if there was a brain in the gene pool of the rovers supporters they would at least meet tds. their not even willing to do that unless tds drop their case. its a farce alright and rovers are playing a full part...
But the official line from TD last week was that this was nothing to do with Rovers and between them and O'Donoghue.
Now they want 'talks' with Rovers.
Flip flop.
Whats changed? Or is it TD not being able to get their story straight and starting to panic since costs have gone against them and clubs in the area are starting to walk away?
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 01:40:42 PM
Rather, I thought that incorporating a much larger playing area for (adult) GAA would so reduce the area available for grandstands that the spectator capacity would become totally inadequate for Rovers' needs.
It's also a very important point of course. As far as I can see, the second (as yet un-built) stand would have to go.
Unfortunately, as long as Thomas Davis keep their amazing plans a closely guarded secret, it's all a bit unclear.
What about the professionalism in the GAA Hoop ??? I'm totally against it so would really appreciate your evidence ::)
You are correct re the pitch sidz EG, nothing to so with the argument, I think it was just brough up off the top of someones head in a desperate attempt to boost the argument and snowballed from there.
Anyway, I think every possible argument has been made for both sides on this thread.
We can drop it now and let the courts decide, or recycle the same old arguments again, and again, and again.
Easily the most tedious thread on the board at the moment
In the words of Gweltyah, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Quote from: stephenite on April 23, 2007, 01:37:16 PM
Anyway, any chance of answering my question and showing you me some concrete examples of professionalism in the GAA that you mentioned yesterday?
Well they don't leave much evidence lying around of the cash being paid under the table by sponsors. That wouldn't help in the efforts to get the government to pay for all the expenses, would it???
But here's a quote by All-Ireland winning former Offaly football boss Eugene McGee
"Numerous outside managers get paid to do the job, which is in direct conflict with the amateur laws of the GAA," he wrote. "All leading GAA officials know this and many of them are directly involved in implementing the payments. The level of hypocrisy involved here is staggering for an organisation that keeps preaching the mantra: 'Gaelic games must always remain amateur'.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 01:05:07 PM
Well apparently the GAA pitch TD want will leave you further away fromt he pitch then a running track. Which sounds like balderdash to me.
Although to play soccer on a GAA-sized pitch undoubtedly makes the view worse for soccer spectators and impacts upon the atmosphere, I didn't think that it was these factors per se to which Rovers were objecting when asked to enlarge the pitch. Nor is it anti-GAA sentiment generally, since they have stated they are quite happy to allow under-age GAA games to be played (these use a smaller pitch than senior games).
Rather, I thought that incorporating a much larger playing area for (adult) GAA would so reduce the area available for grandstands that the spectator capacity would become totally inadequate for Rovers' needs.
(P.S. This is merely a point of information, not an attempt to intervene in the argument ;))
That was my understandling as well.
Interesting to see someone state that the seating arrangements are the main point of consideration when building a municipal stadium. You get the feeling he'd argue the exact opposite if Rovers needed the longer pitch. I even got labelled a bigot for not caring if the soccer fans would be sitting further away then they'd like.
Now of course he'll try and change tack as it seems a rugby pitch is just as long as a GAA pitch and no one ever complained about the old stand in lansdowne being too far away.
A load of nonsense.
Tayto, I'm with ye on this, but a Rugby pitch is not the same length as a GAA pitch, and certainly not the same width. Nor is a Soccer pitch.
So that graphic is useless?
Some FACTS - rugby pitch is 100m long with min 10m per end in goal areas = 120m.
GAA pitch - minimum length 130m, maximum length 150m. 130m > 140 yards.
soccer pitch?
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 02:04:31 PM
Now of course he'll try and change tack as it seems a rugby pitch is just as long as a GAA pitch and no one ever complained about the old stand in lansdowne being too far away.
The terrace in Lansdowne was about six yards behind the goals at soccer matches.
Try harder.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 01:05:07 PM
Well apparently the GAA pitch TD want will leave you further away fromt he pitch then a running track. Which sounds like balderdash to me.
Although to play soccer on a GAA-sized pitch undoubtedly makes the view worse for soccer spectators and impacts upon the atmosphere, I didn't think that it was these factors per se to which Rovers were objecting when asked to enlarge the pitch. Nor is it anti-GAA sentiment generally, since they have stated they are quite happy to allow under-age GAA games to be played (these use a smaller pitch than senior games).
Rather, I thought that incorporating a much larger playing area for (adult) GAA would so reduce the area available for grandstands that the spectator capacity would become totally inadequate for Rovers' needs.
(P.S. This is merely a point of information, not an attempt to intervene in the argument ;))
That was my understandling as well.
Interesting to see someone state that the seating arrangements are the main point of consideration when building a municipal stadium. You get the feeling he'd argue the exact opposite if Rovers needed the longer pitch. I even got labelled a bigot for not caring if the soccer fans would be sitting further away then they'd like.
Now of course he'll try and change tack as it seems a rugby pitch is just as long as a GAA pitch and no one ever complained about the old stand in lansdowne being too far away.
A load of nonsense.
you have managed to contradict yourself twice in the one post. good man.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 02:04:31 PM
Now of course he'll try and change tack as it seems a rugby pitch is just as long as a GAA pitch and no one ever complained about the old stand in lansdowne being too far away.
The terrace in Lansdowne was about six yards behind the goals at soccer matches.
Try harder.
I was going on the pitch size graphic which it now seems is incorrect.
All
Please ignore the graphic (in my last post), in relation to rugby. The GAA and football pitches are correct but the rugby pitch is clearly wrong. It wasn't done by me and the original was correct, I've obviously linked to a duff version. I'll update once I can find the correct version, although this still gives a view of the soccer/GAA demensions (which are what's being discussed).
Soccer pitch dimensions (from FIFA website):
Length: minimum 90 m (100 yds), maximum 120 m (130 yds)
Width: minimum 45 m (50 yds) maximum 90 m (100 yds)
GAA pitch dimensions (From GAA website):
Length: minimum 130m, maximum 145m;
Width: minimum 80m, maximum 90m.
Both pitches must be rectangular.
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 23, 2007, 02:43:12 PM
Soccer pitch dimensions (from FIFA website):
Length: minimum 90 m (100 yds), maximum 120 m (130 yds)
Width: minimum 45 m (50 yds) maximum 90 m (100 yds)
GAA pitch dimensions (From GAA website):
Length: minimum 130m, maximum 145m;
Width: minimum 80m, maximum 90m.
Both pitches must be rectangular.
The soccer pitch in Tallaght Stadium was set at around 100 metres in length. Since it is also intended for underage games, this - rather than the maximum size - makes sense.
With run-off included (ten metres at either end) Thomas Davis want the surface extended to 160 metres.
Going for a larger soccer pitch and a smaller GAA pitch you're not talking all that dramaic a difference.
Seems obvious enough to me a compromise could be reached on pitch size.
Expand the soccer pitch to near the maximum dimensions and a smaller GAA pitch and you're only talking 10meters total. Tomas Davis wouldnt have much of a case if they were insisting on the biggest possible GAA pitch and turning down a smaller adult GAA pitch.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 01:05:07 PM
Well apparently the GAA pitch TD want will leave you further away fromt he pitch then a running track. Which sounds like balderdash to me.
Although to play soccer on a GAA-sized pitch undoubtedly makes the view worse for soccer spectators and impacts upon the atmosphere, I didn't think that it was these factors per se to which Rovers were objecting when asked to enlarge the pitch. Nor is it anti-GAA sentiment generally, since they have stated they are quite happy to allow under-age GAA games to be played (these use a smaller pitch than senior games).
Rather, I thought that incorporating a much larger playing area for (adult) GAA would so reduce the area available for grandstands that the spectator capacity would become totally inadequate for Rovers' needs.
(P.S. This is merely a point of information, not an attempt to intervene in the argument ;))
That was my understandling as well.
Interesting to see someone state that the seating arrangements are the main point of consideration when building a municipal stadium. You get the feeling he'd argue the exact opposite if Rovers needed the longer pitch. I even got labelled a bigot for not caring if the soccer fans would be sitting further away then they'd like.
Now of course he'll try and change tack as it seems a rugby pitch is just as long as a GAA pitch and no one ever complained about the old stand in lansdowne being too far away.
A load of nonsense.
I don't know whether it is I you mean when referring to "someone" and "he", but I fear you are missing the point, just the same as those who are saying that GAA pitch sizes alone make sharing impossible.
Rovers do not need a longer pitch, and even if appears that would make the site unsuitable in any case, since it would not be large enough to accommodate
both a large soccer pitch
and sufficiently large grandstands.
But I may be wrong about this. Anyone out there able to confirm/contradict?
That maximum possible soccer pitch size is somewat bizarre in that just about NOBODY actually uses it. It's way too big.
I just did a quick google search and found that the pitch in Old Trafford measures 105m x 68m.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 02:58:01 PM
Going for a larger soccer pitch and a smaller GAA pitch you're not talking all that dramaic a difference.
Seems obvious enough to me a compromise could be reached on pitch size.
Expand the soccer pitch to near the maximum dimensions and a smaller GAA pitch and you're only talking 10meters total. Tomas Davis wouldnt have much of a case if they were insisting on the biggest possible GAA pitch and turning down a smaller adult GAA pitch.
If I am correct in my earlier posts, such a compromise would not work, since the largest permissable soccer pitch (which would conform to the smallest permissable adult GAA pitch) would
still leave inadequate space for the grandstands required by Rovers (plus the FAI for under-age internationals etc).
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 03:04:55 PM
Rovers do not need a longer pitch, and even if appears that would make the site unsuitable in any case, since it would not be large enough to accommodate both a large soccer pitch and sufficiently large grandstands.
But I may be wrong about this. Anyone out there able to confirm/contradict?
That is correct. The planned stadium - as a soccer stadium - fits snugly into the site.
Putting in an adult GAA pitch means either leaving out one side of the ground or "annexing" a hefty chunk of the grounds of the school next door.
If internationals are to be played then the soccer pitch MUST be between 100m and 110m in length. FIFA have different dimension allowed for soccer internationals.
It seems to me that a minimum size adult GAA pitch could be facilitated with a bit of compromise. A grass area of 140m by 90m would cover this (5m run off on each side is loads). Soccer fans at the end of the pitch would still be closer to the goals than in the Brandywell and there's no problem there with atmosphere.
Evil genuis, Look i realise that maybe an issue, and it's a a far stronger arguement then the lads are putting forward.
Hoop is the one trying to argue the principle that fitting any GAA pitch into any stadium automatically makes that venue unsuitable for soccer. He came up with this argument to try and justify the offensive banner Rovers fans held up at a recent match, he went on to say Thomas Davis are trying to "destroy" this project, and even said Rovers were the "victims". He is claiming that the crowd would have to be 30m from either end in order to fit a GAA pitch. This simply isn't the case according to the regulation pitch dimensions above.
Now, Thomas Davis have a architects report saying the pitch could be expanded without changing the capacity of the stadium on the tallaght site. The Rovers lads, of course, doubt this report exists but I can't imagine TD have a case if the capacity would be badly reduced. I would imagine this will be looked at when the review comes around.
I actually wouldnt argue Thomas Davis's case if the capacity would have to be reduced, as Rovers will need the higher capacity for cup matches-Dublin derbys and the like.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:26:24 PM
Now, Thomas Davis have a architects report saying the pitch could be expanded without changing the capacity of the stadium on this site. The Rovers lads, of course, doubt this report exists but I can't imagine TD have a case if the capacity would be badly reduced. I would imagine this will be looked at when the review comes around.
I actually wouldnt argue Thomas Davis's case if the capacity would have to be reduced, as Rovers will need the higher capacity for cup matches-Dublin derbys and the like.
Well it would be a great help to all of us if Thomas Davis were to release their secret plans - NOW - and not maybe in a couple of years (depending on the timeframe for the Judicial Review).
They have continually stated that capacity wouldn't be reduced, but how can this be the case if the second stand is reduced to a couple of yards (in depth) of terrace???
What they MIGHT mean, is that the capacity after the planned FIRST PHASE of construction would not be reduced. But the second phase would never be possible - so the planned final capacity of around 10 thousand (or possibly more) is out the window.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 03:06:19 PM
That maximum possible soccer pitch size is somewat bizarre in that just about NOBODY actually uses it. It's way too big.
I just did a quick google search and found that the pitch in Old Trafford measures 105m x 68m.
Indeed. What people are overlooking is that the pitch dimensions were originally laid down before soccer went professional. Also, unlike Gaelic Games, soccer clubs sometimes shared with other sports (usually cricket), which required a much larger playing area. Consequently, you had unusual shared grounds such as at Northampton Town, where there were stands built on only three sides of the ground.
However, when soccer started attracting large crowds, the cricket clubs moved out, thereby allowing grandstands/terraces to be built on the redundant playing area.
Further, with the all-seater requirements for international matches, plus the top tier of English football, ever larger stands have had to be shoehorned around ever smaller pitches. For example, when Stamford Bridge was re-built in the 90's, the old dog track was completely removed. And when Wembley re-opens, you'lll see that the dogs have been evicted from there, as well.
Plus, with many grounds formerly built in suburban areas (i.e. with lots of space) now facinf encroachment by urban sprawl, space is ever more at a premium.
Of course, none of the above particularly applies in the Tallaght case, but it serves to show why standard soccer pitches are invariably at the minimum end of the permitted maximum/minimum dimensions.
One further consideration re sharing facitlities generally is that due to the nature of the games, plus tradition (I guess), soccer places much great emphasis on spectator accommodation (seats or terracing)
behind the goals. By contrast, rugby fans much prefer to watch from
alongside the pitch. Consequently, soccer grounds are invariably developed on all four sides, whereas rugby grounds often have minimal (even no) development at either end. (See Ravenhill, even the old Landsdowne, as examples)
I don't know about GAA sports. Do they have the same "Kop"-style tradition as soccer, or is it more like rugby?
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:26:24 PM
He is claiming that the crowd would have to be 30m from either end in order to fit a GAA pitch. This simply isn't the case according to the regulation pitch dimensions above.
The planned soccer pitch is 100 metres in length.
Thomas Davis want the playing surface extended to 160 metres.
Fact.
Well its a far more logical arguement then the one you've been trying to go down till now hoop.
Was their report shown to the judge who granted the review?
Why hasnt the minister been using this line of arguement to make his case instead of saying he made a "promise" to Rovers that it'd be soccer only.
A lot more people would understand the decision if there was a clear logical argument behind it like a reduction in capacity.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 03:41:28 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:26:24 PM
He is claiming that the crowd would have to be 30m from either end in order to fit a GAA pitch. This simply isn't the case according to the regulation pitch dimensions above.
The planned soccer pitch is 100 metres in length.
Thomas Davis want the playing surface extended to 160 metres.
Fact.
Well unplan the soccer pitch and negociate with Thomas Davis about the size of the GAA pitch.
OH no you're right, far better to let this get dragged through the courts. Well done mnister.
tayto,
If TD actually had this report (bear in mind they or the 'architects' have never had access to the site) that says capacity wouldnt be reduced and a gaa pitch included and it was viable, they would be in. No arguments from anyone.
They have been asked for this report and refused to share. They didnt introduce it as 'evidence' in their Judicial Review application.
What does that say
I smell rodent.
So, the capacity is THE only arguement. :o
Well finally we get there. :o
We went through a lot of faffology to get this far. :D
A couple of pages ago Hoop said something else was the main arguement. ???
Do we all agree then that if it can be expanded without a reduction in capacity then it's fair enough? :-\
I would agree that a reduction in capacity should rule Thomad Davis out of the planed stadium. :-*
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:48:55 PM
So, the capacity is THE only arguement. :o
Well finally we get there. :o
We went through a lot of faffology to get this far. :D
A couple of pages ago Hoop said something else was the main arguement. ???
Do we all agree then that if it can be expanded without a reduction in capacity then it's fair enough? :-\
I would agree that a reduction in capacity should rule Thomad Davis out of the planed stadium. :-*
Shamrock Rovers said this 2 years ago ffs.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 23, 2007, 03:45:04 PM
If TD actually had this report (bear in mind they or the 'architects' have never had access to the site) that says capacity wouldnt be reduced and a gaa pitch included and it was viable, they would be in. No arguments from anyone.
They have been asked for this report and refused to share. They didnt introduce it as 'evidence' in their Judicial Review application.
Access to the site isn't an issue really. The council have plenty of detailed plans which Thomas Davis can also access. In fact, it was at the request of Thomas Davis that the council drew up a new plan to illustrate the impact of putting in a playing surface 160 metres in length. I'm not sure that they've shown that to anyone either - but I've seen it.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 23, 2007, 03:50:34 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:48:55 PM
So, the capacity is THE only arguement. :o
Well finally we get there. :o
We went through a lot of faffology to get this far. :D
A couple of pages ago Hoop said something else was the main arguement. ???
Do we all agree then that if it can be expanded without a reduction in capacity then it's fair enough? :-\
I would agree that a reduction in capacity should rule Thomad Davis out of the planed stadium. :-*
Shamrock Rovers said this 2 years ago ffs.
Well no one has said it on here till now.
There has been bitching and moaning about who got funding before, i was even called a bigot because i said i dont care about the atmoshpere at rovers matches.
Why in the meantime didnt the minister get an independent architectual review or demand to see Thomas Davis's review? Why isnt he saying this is the issue every time he's asked about Tallaght? Everyone can understand something like capacity being reduced making a project unviable. Instead he has just dug his heels in and said something about promises, this that and the other
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:55:36 PM
Why in the meantime didnt the minister get an independent architectual review or demand to see Thomas Davis's review? Why isnt he saying this is the issue every time he's asked about Tallaght? Everyone can understand something like capacity being reduced making a project unviable. Instead he has just dug his heels in and said something about promises, this that and the other
He knows that it's an issue.
Go here:
http://www.shamrockrovers.ie/newsarchive.php
and then scroll down to:
Minister ODonoghue on RTE "This Week" radio programme 08-04-07
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:55:36 PM
Well no one has said it on here till now.
It doesn't take much working out. If you have a fixed piece of land and you're building a stadium, if you then increase the pitch size by 60 metres but can't increase the piece of land, you have to reduce and/or remove some of the stands, which in turn will reduce capacity. It's hardly rocket science.
On a slightly different tack, apparently the Maze stadium is going to have moveable stands that allow for the bigger pitch without affecting capacity but none of the Maze supporters have been able to explain how this will actually work. ::)
Quote from: SammyG on April 23, 2007, 04:13:03 PM
It doesn't take much working out. If you have a fixed piece of land and you're building a stadium, if you then increase the pitch size by 60 metres but can't increase the piece of land, you have to reduce and/or remove some of the stands, which in turn will reduce capacity. It's hardly rocket science.
Yes - I would have thought that it was obvious that the one matter leads to the next.
Maybe not.
When I said the "main issue", I meant that Rovers objections have - for example - nothing to do with pitch over-use, or fixtures clash or dislike of the GAA.
They have EVERYTHING to do with a botched stadium, reduced capacity and a facility totally unsuited to soccer (that's the 30 yards away from the pitch bit).
Theres me hoping this thread would end after 30 pages of the same old arguments going back and forth, and who joins in?
Sammy G and Evil Genius.
Roll on page 60 ;)
On a different note Shamrock Rovers have issued an apology to Drogheda's Simon Webb. Apparently at a match last weekend a section of the Rovers support hurled abuse at him about his late wife who died of cancer last year. Some fans left the stadium in disgust. Absolutely sickening. Rovers have a big support but also a substantial sc**bag element following them.
Apology to Simon Webb (Drogheda United FC)
21 Apr 2007.On behalf of the club's membership and the entire Shamrock Rovers community, we wish to issue a public apology to Simon Webb for the heartless and highly personal verbal abuse he was subjected to from a tiny minority of the attendance at the Shamrock Rovers-Drogheda United game at Tolka Park on April 20. Those responsible should be ashamed of themselves and are certainly not welcome at Shamrock Rovers. An investigation into the incident has begun and those responsible will be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
Shamrock Rovers FC Board of Directors
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 23, 2007, 04:20:33 PM
Theres me hoping this thread would end after 30 pages of the same old arguments going back and forth, and who joins in?
Sammy G and Evil Genius.
Roll on page 60 ;)
I'm not involved in the discussion (as I've no idea of the ins and outs). I'm just dropping in the odd useful nugget of information, I'm not taking sides.
Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on April 23, 2007, 04:24:47 PM
Rovers have a big support but also a substantial sc**bag element following them.
Correction - VERY SMALL sc**bag element.
It would appear that two or three morons gave the abuse and very few in the ground actually heard it.
Quote from: SammyG on April 23, 2007, 04:13:03 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:55:36 PM
Well no one has said it on here till now.
It doesn't take much working out. If you have a fixed piece of land and you're building a stadium, if you then increase the pitch size by 60 metres but can't increase the piece of land, you have to reduce and/or remove some of the stands, which in turn will reduce capacity. It's hardly rocket science.
On a slightly different tack, apparently the Maze stadium is going to have moveable stands that allow for the bigger pitch without affecting capacity but none of the Maze supporters have been able to explain how this will actually work. ::)
I know it seems obvious but why the attempted argument about this that and the other, some of it truely bizare, when something this clear cut is the only real issue.
Hoop actually said the distance seats would be from the pitch was the real issue a few pages back not capacity.
When it's actually quite obvious the capacity issue is the only real deal breaker. I believe Thomas Davis when they say it can be done without reducing capacity. you guys don't. That's what it boils down to.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 04:32:27 PM
I believe Thomas Davis when they say it can be done without reducing capacity. you guys don't. That's what it boils down to.
Show us the plans Thomas Davis!!!
???
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 04:03:28 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:55:36 PM
Why in the meantime didnt the minister get an independent architectual review or demand to see Thomas Davis's review? Why isnt he saying this is the issue every time he's asked about Tallaght? Everyone can understand something like capacity being reduced making a project unviable. Instead he has just dug his heels in and said something about promises, this that and the other
He knows that it's an issue.
Go here:
http://www.shamrockrovers.ie/newsarchive.php
and then scroll down to:
Minister ODonoghue on RTE "This Week" radio programme 08-04-07
He has mentioned various reasons for his decision, only once that i've heard did he mention the capacity. If that's the reason he made the SDCC change their mind why isnt it his standard answer? Why mention "promises" to Rovers and why say he dosent want "any re-development work", if the capacity is definately going to have to be reduced and that makes the project unviable, why not just say that everytime, if true then it's logical and everyone can be brought on side.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 04:32:27 PM
I believe Thomas Davis when they say it can be done without reducing capacity. you guys don't. That's what it boils down to.
Show us the plans Thomas Davis!!!
???
Indeed. or couldnt the minister hire someone to do an independent review? he isnt consistent with this as the stumbling block so he's hardly convincing on this matter.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 04:31:41 PM
It would appear that two or three morons gave the abuse and very few in the ground actually heard it.
Where did you get the info saying it was only 2 or 3?
I'm not saying you are lying, I've no idea as I wasnt there (thank f**k) but I have heard it was a lot more than 2 or 3, more so 20-30.
All hearsay of course, as is the report that it was only 2-3.
I would be worried if I was a Rovers fan though about their image.
Tallaght aside, its the "tiny minorities" fighting outside the hill 16 pub, added to the "tiny minorities" holding the f**k off and die banner, added to the "tiny minorities" chanting at Webb, and the Cork fella.
Add those tiny minorities up and they start to appear less "tiny".
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 04:38:59 PM
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 04:36:49 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 04:32:27 PM
I believe Thomas Davis when they say it can be done without reducing capacity. you guys don't. That's what it boils down to.
Show us the plans Thomas Davis!!!
???
Indeed. or couldnt the minister hire someone to do an independent review? he isnt consistent with this as the stumbling block so he's hardly convincing on this matter.
He is the independent review.
Why should they spend money on a report to counter a report that the people claiming to have refuse to share, even in court?
What are they reviewing? A super secret plan?
Well surely it'd be better then what is happening?
Why hasnt he publically said TD won't share their report.
If they're being that unreasonable why not go public with it.
I would certainly not support them if they're making this report up or refused to show it to the minister when asked for it.
Why isnt the minister banging this drum non-stop instead of banging on about promises he made to rovers etc. I don;t care what hes promised but I do think it's unreasonable for TD to expect entry if the capcity would have to be badly reduced.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 23, 2007, 04:40:55 PM
Where did you get the info saying it was only 2 or 3?
From the few fans that actually heard anything.
And incidentally - as I said before - there is nothing wrong with the banner.
People who object to it simply have no idea about the level of rage and frustration currently being felt by Rovers fans. Twenty years is long enough without a home ground. What Thomas Davis want could hold up Tallaght Stadium for SEVEN MORE YEARS.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 23, 2007, 04:20:33 PM
Theres me hoping this thread would end after 30 pages of the same old arguments going back and forth, and who joins in?
Sammy G and Evil Genius.
Roll on page 60 ;)
Do you ever attempt to "play the ball", or do you only ever "go for the man"?
I am generally interested in this topic, but confined myself to merely reading through it, since I have no particular knowledge of the circumstances, nor do matters in the Republic involve me.
However, after 29 pages, I concluded that the thread had veered off topic to what seemed to me to be the extraneous issue of pitch size, rather than
stadium size (i.e. spectator capacity).
Therefore, in order to
prevent another 29 pages, I raised a point of information which, if it is not immodest to point out, seems to have been accepted by all sides to the debate as having been useful in getting us back on track.
So unless you have something useful to contribute to the debate, why don't you just f**k off! ::)
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 05:05:37 PM
From the few fans that actually heard anything.
And incidentally - as I said before - there is nothing wrong with the banner.
People who object to it simply have no idea about the level of rage and frustration currently being felt by Rovers fans. Twenty years is long enough without a home ground. What Thomas Davis want could hold up Tallaght Stadium for SEVEN MORE YEARS.
You may think there's nothing wrong with the banner but that doesn't mean there isn't. To be honest failure to condemn it undermines your opinion. I'm sure it's a frustrating situation to wind up in but you seem to be taking 20 years of hurt out on Thomas Davis, which is totally unfair, they're not the ones who shafted you in the first place.
You, and Dublin fella, have made just about every possible argument saying that ThomasDavis have no use for the site, no right to use the site, that gaa clubs get grants all the time, just about every illogical argument as to why TD are in the wrong.
It seems clear as day to me that they have every right to raise a complaint about access to a municipal stadium if it can be achieved without making the project unviable.
Someone needs to prove it one way or the other and get on with it. Whether you like it or not Thomas Davis are fighting for their rights, through the only channels available to them.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 05:05:37 PM
And incidentally - as I said before - there is nothing wrong with the banner.
There you go. That's where you lose everyone here. Since you see nothing wrong with the banner, that puts you on the same level as the scum who raised it and beyond being worthy of the normal courtesies extended to contributors here.
Likewise, the failure of Shamrock Rovers officials to have the banner removed or to condemn it or to discipline those responsible puts them likewise on the same level.
My respects, by the way, to those who had the decency and courage to leave the match in protest at the unbelievable carry-on last Friday.
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 05:18:32 PM
... you seem to be taking 20 years of hurt out on Thomas Davis, which is totally unfair, they're not the ones who shafted you in the first place.
No, of course not. But Thomas Davis are well aware of our situation and have no problem whatsoever with dragging this out for as long as possible. Last December for example, before a decision had been reached on whether a Judicial Review should take place or not, Thomas Davis raised a side issue in order to try to get the decision about holding a Judicial Review put off for another 12 months. The judge told them where to go.
Bizarrely though, they have repeatedly claimed that the Minister is to blame for holding things up. From that I take it that they expect him to roll over and give them what they want just because they scream loud enough.
Don't really want to get involved in this discussion either as I wouldn't know all the in's and outs of either side.
But as mentioned above if the problem is over the stadium size rather than pitch size? CAn I just ask what is the spectator capacity if SR get their way?
Quote from: Hardy on April 23, 2007, 05:18:46 PM
There you go. That's where you lose everyone here. Since you see nothing wrong with the banner, that puts you on the same level as the scum who raised it and beyond being worthy of the normal courtesies extended to contributors here.
Perhaps you could go through the first two pages of this thread - for a start - and read the endless list of derogatory terms applied to ALL Shamrock Rovers fans (me included) and then come back and talk to me about courtesy.
Well the minister has let it go to court, once in court everything is fair game, even stalling till there is a new minister! :o
The most recent judge said Thomas Davis had a "significant case" when granting the judicial review, so there we go, one can only imagine he looked at the cold hard facts and came to this conclusion.
Quote from: supersarsfields on April 23, 2007, 05:32:36 PM
Don't really want to get involved in this discussion either as I wouldn't know all the in's and outs of either side.
But as mentioned above if the problem is over the stadium size rather than pitch size? CAn I just ask what is the spectator capacity if SR get their way?
10,000 at least eventually, though the foundations laid for the stands were deliberately planned for a second tier in each stand should this eventually prove viable - so it could be maybe 14,000.
And being realistic and allowing for conserative increase, Do SR need a 10K stadium if their average crowd has been offically recorded as being in the region of just over 1000? Even allowing the 2-3000 that some here have quoted.
If people are talking about atmosphere suffering regarding having the extra pitch size, It will suffer pretty bad from being 3/4's empty on match days aswell.
Or have I missed something( As I said i'm not too up to date with this) that would require that extra seating?
Well big cup games or important league matches, derbys etc. would bring in a good crowd which eircom league clubs depend on to bring their average gate up and bringin extra revenue, a bit like GAA league vs Championship attendances.
Still 14k would seem to be over the top. Could one side not be developed to have two tiers with the GAA pitch in place?
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 05:46:05 PM
Well big cup games or important league matches, derbys etc. would bring in a good crowd which eircom league clubs depend on to bring their average gate up and bringin extra revenue, a bit like GAA league vs Championship attendances.
Still 14k would seem to be over the top. Could one side not be developed to have two tiers with the GAA pitch in place?
no, because the foundations will have to come up.
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 04:31:41 PM
Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on April 23, 2007, 04:24:47 PM
Rovers have a big support but also a substantial sc**bag element following them.
Correction - VERY SMALL sc**bag element.
It would appear that two or three morons gave the abuse and very few in the ground actually heard it.
You'd think that the "two or three morons" would have been shouted down by the other 2,997 esteemed citizens and the player concerned wouldn't have heard such vile.
Your comment about "nothing wrong with the banner" leaves you open to ridicule and really beggars belief (particularily coming from someone who protests to have the best interests of the club at heart).
And seriously how many 5000+ games would there be a season?
dunno, a handful probably, again a bt like most county grounds!
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 05:07:58 PM
Do you ever attempt to "play the ball", or do you only ever "go for the man"?
I am generally interested in this topic, but confined myself to merely reading through it, since I have no particular knowledge of the circumstances, nor do matters in the Republic involve me.
However, after 29 pages, I concluded that the thread had veered off topic to what seemed to me to be the extraneous issue of pitch size, rather than stadium size (i.e. spectator capacity).
Therefore, in order to prevent another 29 pages, I raised a point of information which, if it is not immodest to point out, seems to have been accepted by all sides to the debate as having been useful in getting us back on track.
So unless you have something useful to contribute to the debate, why don't you just f**k off! ::)
OK EG, you lectured and insulted someone else earlier for not getting your "humour"
Thats twice today you have snapped at me for joking with you, did you notice the winking face beside my post???
I wont go down the line of insults as per your "remedial readers" comments as I presume you genuinely took me up wrong as we have argued before.
I dont have a problem with your points here at all, I was merely suggesting that this could go on for a while given your and Sammys previous doggedness when pursueing an argument.
As I said last time, theres a lot of narkiness on here today :-\
Apologies, if sent, will be accepted ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 23, 2007, 06:43:05 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 05:07:58 PM
Do you ever attempt to "play the ball", or do you only ever "go for the man"?
I am generally interested in this topic, but confined myself to merely reading through it, since I have no particular knowledge of the circumstances, nor do matters in the Republic involve me.
However, after 29 pages, I concluded that the thread had veered off topic to what seemed to me to be the extraneous issue of pitch size, rather than stadium size (i.e. spectator capacity).
Therefore, in order to prevent another 29 pages, I raised a point of information which, if it is not immodest to point out, seems to have been accepted by all sides to the debate as having been useful in getting us back on track.
So unless you have something useful to contribute to the debate, why don't you just f**k off! ::)
OK EG, you lectured and insulted someone else earlier for not getting your "humour"
Thats twice today you have snapped at me for joking with you, did you notice the winking face beside my post???
I wont go down the line of insults as per your "remedial readers" comments as I presume you genuinely took me up wrong as we have argued before.
I dont have a problem with your points here at all, I was merely suggesting that this could go on for a while given your and Sammys previous doggedness when pursueing an argument.
As I said last time, theres a lot of narkiness on here today :-\
Apologies, if sent, will be accepted ;)
Normally when I post, I try to keep to the topic under discussion. I don't expect many/any other posters to agree with my opinions, but so long as they stay on topic, I try to respect their views. However, there are a small number of posters who, when they see my posts (and those of posters of like opinion) more often than not go to "play the man, not the ball".
In my experience, you are one of those. If in the particular instance above, I failed to spot the good humour, then I apologise. Perhaps this was because my previous post to which you were responding was a genuine and, as it turns out, effective effort to get the thread back on topic.
Otherwise, I have avoided involvement in this particular topic, for reasons outlined elsewhere.
Occasionally, however, I attempt (whether successfully or otherwise) to take a humourous approach to certain topics - for example, my exchanges with Ziggysego over the Football Play. Again, the vast majority of posters appear to recognise this and take it as intended.
Unfortunately, there remain one or two irritating individuals who cannot resist the temptation to play the man in such instances.
One such example was "Billy's Boots" with his post on my response to Fearon's original rant over the Play. Billy chose completely to ignore the serious points I made about play and playwrite, and instead picked me up literally on one throwaway line which was clearly meant as a joke. It seemed to me to be a puerile effort to show how clever he was - "Look at me - I've caught you out - nah nah..."
Now maybe it is just Monday morning tetchiness, but that sort of juvenile response got on my tits.
P.S. That's as close as you're going to get to an apology from me today. Or any day...
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 07:10:34 PM
It seemed to me to be a puerile effort to show how clever he was - "Look at me - I've caught you out - nah nah..."
Been there.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 23, 2007, 07:10:34 PM
If in the particular instance above, I failed to spot the good humour, then I apologise
Apology accepted, Evil Genius.
As I said earlier, its all about the love 8)
p.s. it was genuinely a joke.
"On a different note Shamrock Rovers have issued an apology to Drogheda's Simon Webb. Apparently at a match last weekend a section of the Rovers support hurled abuse at him about his late wife who died of cancer last year. Some fans left the stadium in disgust. Absolutely sickening. Rovers have a big support but also a substantial sc**bag element following them."
wouldn't even describe them as animals -they are beyond that- utter scumbags - how anybody could shout that at a game is beyond me. they should be locked in a cage.
Quote from: INDIANA on April 23, 2007, 11:50:21 PM
"On a different note Shamrock Rovers have issued an apology to Drogheda's Simon Webb. Apparently at a match last weekend a section of the Rovers support hurled abuse at him about his late wife who died of cancer last year. Some fans left the stadium in disgust. Absolutely sickening. Rovers have a big support but also a substantial sc**bag element following them."
wouldn't even describe them as animals -they are beyond that- utter scumbags - how anybody could shout that at a game is beyond me. they should be locked in a cage.
apparently it was one fan and no-one left in disgust as it wasnt heard.
how did rumours get spread before the interweb?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 01:10:50 AM
apparently it was one fan and no-one left in disgust as it wasnt heard.
how did rumours get spread before the interweb?
Ah your mask has truly slipped now, if it was one fan how did the player in question get to hear it so loudly, how did his manager hear it and if it was only one fan would he really have made the comments on TV3??
I have attempted to discuss this issue with you over the months, and have been reasonable in that. The club has had the decency (for once) to come out and condemn a section of their support, and for that I applaud them.
The fact that you attempt to cover this up, or turn it into 'one fans' fault really are inexcusable - you are a f**king sc**bag for posting that, and sadly indiciative of the minority of scum that are pervasive in Shamrock Rovers these days
Quote from: stephenite on April 24, 2007, 01:29:07 AM
Ah your mask has truly slipped now ............... you are a f**king sc**bag for posting that ...............
You Sir, are a sick gobdaw. You seem to get a kick out of posting whatever SHITE you can make up about Shamrock Rovers or forum members with whom you don't agree. Get some facts - and get a life.
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 07:58:46 AM
Quote from: stephenite on April 24, 2007, 01:29:07 AM
Ah your mask has truly slipped now ............... you are a f**king sc**bag for posting that ...............
You Sir, are a sick gobdaw. You seem to get a kick out of posting whatever SHITE you can make up about Shamrock Rovers or forum members with whom you don't agree. Get some facts - and get a life.
Another one who is trying to defend the utterly indefensible, you guys really are OTT
I have, on numerous occasions discussed the issues with Dublinfella over the past few months despite his tendencies to post spurious information about the main issue, but these comments about it being one supporter are patently unture, the club would have said as much in it's statement if this was the case.
Where have I posted any made up shite about Shamrock Rovers - point it out and explain how it's made up or shite????
I suspect you'll struggle
And you can view my profile all you want - not like I'll have my address or anything up there :-*
Quote from: stephenite on April 24, 2007, 08:06:19 AM
Another one who is trying to defend the utterly indefensible, you guys really are OTT
I have, on numerous occasions discussed the issues with Dublinfella over the past few months despite his tendencies to post spurious information about the main issue, but these comments about it being one supporter are patently unture, the club would have said as much in it's statement if this was the case.
Where have I posted any made up shite about Shamrock Rovers - point it out and explain how it's made up or shite????
I suspect you'll struggle
And you can view my profile all you want - not like I'll have my address or anything up there :-*
The Rovers board have issued the apology because they accept that the abuse happened - although they didn't hear it. Likewise the fans accept that it happened, although I still haven't come across anyone who personally heard it. I would therefore conclude that the abuse was both brief and from a tiny minority. I don't know if it was one person - but I would be amazed if it was more than two.
So what Dublinfella says is essentially correct. He is defending NOTHING - he is merely offering some clarification. Going by your reaction, you don't want clarification. You seem to want to instead believe that it was a seething horde of fans chanting for a long spell, because this fits in with your hate-filled view of Shamrock Rovers.
Regarding your earlier comments:
"Didn't bother Shamrock Rovers too much when they were played in Morton Stadium in Santry, that had a big running track all the way around it."Rubbish. Acknowledged by all at the club as a WOEFUL venue.
"And there's the rub, ye still used it because nobody else would have ye."More rubbish. The decision to use Morton was a thought-out, strategic decision. And also - as it turned out - a very wrong one.
"Now, now, The Shams played quite a few games there, and God knows did enough damage in the Swiss Cottage,and by that I mean supporters causing actual damage to property and Northside heads as opposed to their own liver. This in itself proves that at least the hardcore scum, sorry Ultras managed to make the journey."Yet more rubbish. The Ultras (with whom I occasionally work on match-related projects) are a group of decent fans who make flags and banners, run an internet forum and organize busses to away games. You can call them scum, hooligans or anything you want as often as you want. It doesn't make it any truer.
"And there it is, the last last resort to innuendo and lies"That's hilarious, coming from you.
Incidentally - I was kind of wondering why you didn't get back to me after you repeatedly demanded - and then received - evidence of professionalism in the GAA. Truth hurts, huh?
(Regarding your profile - I'm not aware of any other way of locating the comments you asked me to point out. If you know of one - please tell me).
Statement from Shamrock Rovers (bold emphasis is mine)
QuoteApology to Simon Webb (Drogheda United FC)
21 Apr 2007. On behalf of the club's membership and the entire Shamrock Rovers community, we wish to issue a public apology to Simon Webb for the heartless and highly personal verbal abuse he was subjected to from a tiny minority of the attendance at the Shamrock Rovers-Drogheda United game at Tolka Park on April 20. Those responsible should be ashamed of themselves and are certainly not welcome at Shamrock Rovers. An investigation into the incident has begun and those responsible will be dealt with in an appropriate manner.
Shamrock Rovers FC Board of Directors
This "one fan" must have magic powers. He transforms himself into a number of fans and conceals his singular individuality to a sufficient extent to elicit a statement from Shamrock Rovers describing him in the plural. All the more impressive when you consider that, according to dublinfella, he "wasn't heard".
We're still waiting for Rovers' condemnation of the banner and their undertaking to deal with those responsible in an appropriate manner. I'd guess we'll be waiting.
Quote from: Hardy on April 24, 2007, 09:15:54 AM
We're still waiting for Rovers' condemnation of the banner and their undertaking to deal with those responsible in an appropriate manner. I'd guess we'll be waiting.
Correct.
QuoteYet more rubbish. The Ultras (with whom I occasionally work on match-related projects) are a group of decent fans who make flags and banners
Yes - we noticed their talent in that department and were duly impressed with the decency of this fine upstanding group, with whom you "occasionally work on match-related projects".
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 09:19:17 AM
Correct.
And that's what renders Shamrock Rovers and the "Ultras" indistinguishable from each other and equally contemptible. What gang of louts masquerading as a sports club are next on John O'Donoghue's list for financial support, I wonder?
Quote from: Hardy on April 24, 2007, 09:27:00 AM
What gang of louts masquerading as a sports club are next on John O'Donoghue's list for financial support, I wonder?
Yes indeed - the GAA have been treated very well by John O'Donoghue - despite the mass brawls almost every weekend at GAA matches.
There are morons supporting soccer team and GAA teams - and playing for soccer and GAA teams.
People are quick to jump on the bandwagon and castigate the opposition - but when the boot is on the other foot, they are just as quick to defend their own for the exact same crime.
The Webb incident is awful, but is irrelevant to the Tallaght stadium debate.
Ah for f**k sake Hoop give over will ya.
Please advise where this weeks mass brawl was? and last weeks, and the week befores?
Or are you talking chelsea v arsenal league cup final style "mass brawls" ? :D :D :D :D :D
Otherwise stop spouting shite ::)
Yes there are fights in GAA games, but guess what, and brace yourself for this, there are fights in soccer games too.
Now the big difference is with the fans.
they are different type of animal altogether.
I'd tell you to "f**k off and die" but I wont stoop to the Ultras level.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 09:39:00 AM
Please advise where this weeks mass brawl was? and last weeks, and the week befores?
Violent incidents to be investigated
Monday, 16 April 2007 12:21
GAA chiefs in Tyrone are to probe violent incidents which led to the abandonment of a match between two of the county's top teams at the weekend.
The Division 1A league game between Ardboe and defending champions Dromore was cut short 20 minutes from the end after fighting broke out, involving players and supporters.
Top inter-county referee Michael Hughes, who was officiating at the game, called an end to the action after efforts to restore order failed.
Aodhán Harkin, secretary of the county's Competitions Control Committee, said that an immediate investigation will be ordered, with the Disciplinary Committee set to meet late this week.
'There will be an inquiry, and knowing Michael Hughes (referee), his report was probably in this morning. It doesn't bode well, second game of the season, it's not what anybody wants to see. But these things have to be dealt with.
'I understand it was a free-for-all involving players and supporters.'So what do you reckon? Has a "free-for-all involving players and supporters" ever happened at an Irish soccer match???
The answer is No.
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 09:30:55 AM
Yes indeed - the GAA have been treated very well by John O'Donoghue - despite the mass brawls almost every weekend at GAA matches.
What? Never happened. And if it did it was just one fan. And he wasn't heard/seen.
Sound familiar?
Hound - of course you are correct, with one important exception. As long as Shamrock Rovers fail to condemn the banner or do anything about dealing with those responsible, they are complicit in the gurrierism it represents.
How does that prove there are mass brawls "almost every week" ::)
And what has this to do with Shamrock Rovers Ultras or the stadium?
Ah yes, thats right, NOTHING, just another pathetic dig at the GAA.
Hoop, you are really starting to appear desperate and bitter.
8)
Lads you cannot deny that there is fights at inter county GAA matches nearly every week.I can pick out two in recent weeks.The one Hoop was on about and there was scenes where a supporter ran on the pitch to confront an umpire in a game about two weeks ago shown Sunday Sport.I was at the Rovers match against Drogheda and did not hear the abuse that Simon Webb got.Im not denying that it did not happen but it must of been only 2 or 3 at most as I was sitting close to where it took place.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 24, 2007, 10:09:03 AM
Lads you cannot deny that there is fights at inter county GAA matches nearly every week.
Actually it's mostly club matches. The same clubs who are happy to receive enormous grant funding - yet people on this forum spread lies and innuendo about Shamrock Rovers in an effort to discredit the club and argue against the club getting funding.
Bizarre stuff.
Good relations, theres a huge difference between a "fight" and a "mass brawl"
There are "fights" in soccer games around the country every week too.
Feck sake there was an incident where a gun was pointed at a player at a soccer game in Dublin a few years ago!!
But again, what has this got to do with anything??
It really looks like ye are randomly pointing out anything you see as "bad" about the GAA at this stage, despite it being irrelevant to the point.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 10:19:55 AM
It really looks like ye are randomly pointing out anything you see as "bad" about the GAA at this stage, despite it being irrelevant to the point.
Now replace "GAA" with "Shamrock Rovers" in the above sentence - and then read back through this thread.
Lies and innuendo? Such as?
regarding the Stadium in Tallaght, I'd be of the opinion that if the GAA can be accomodated in a PUBLIC stadium without affecting attendence, then it should be accomodated. If it were a private stadium I'd tell Thomas Davis to get lost. Equally if Shamrock Rovers are simply using a PUBLIC stadium, then they have no right to say who can or cannot use it.
I think all the arguments are used up at this point, so lets just wait for the courts to decide whether the Minister or Thomas Davis are right here.
But as regards Shamrock Rovers and their fans. I completely accept that gobshites follow every sport and every team, including the GAA, and that Rovers probably have hundreds of regulars who are decent folk. However, I have to say that I have a fairly bad opinion of the Rovers fans in general.
This stems from my personal experience of them at a couple of games, most notably at Dalymount when themselves and Bohs 'fans' staged pitched battles up and down the street out the 'back' of Dalymount. My now-wife and I were at the game, and we've been at sporting events all over the world, including club soccer matches in England and Italy, as well as internationals in Switzerland, the USA, and other places. I have never been afraid for her, or my, safety anywhere else apart from that night.
I realise quoting one incident does not a pattern make, but I have seen other incidents with Rovers fans at Tolka Park versus Shels.
My own experiences of some, and I repeat some, of their fans, allied with the 'F*ck off and Die' banner, allied with the chants at Simon Webb about his late wife, allied with some of your attempts to brush them away or defend them (the banner) and my opinion is fairly low to be honest. But I still can't see the lies and innuendo. What was false?
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2007, 10:27:35 AM
Lies and innuendo? Such as?
How about this quote from your good self? Do I really have to point out the innuendo to you?
..... or whatever halting site Rovers are currently occupying .....
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 10:23:12 AM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 10:19:55 AM
It really looks like ye are randomly pointing out anything you see as "bad" about the GAA at this stage, despite it being irrelevant to the point.
Now replace "GAA" with "Shamrock Rovers" in the above sentence - and then read back through this thread.
This thread is about Shamrock Rovers fans holiding up offensive banners.
Of course we are going to discuss their bad elements ::)
This is really getting into a tedious tit for tat load of bollox.
Incidentally, if you think I am going to read back through 35 odd pages you are very much mistaken, jesus Its boring to read the first time round :D
Quote..... or whatever halting site Rovers are currently occupying .....
That was a reference to their penchant for skipping around Dublin since Milltown closed. Didn't mean to imply they were tinkers or anything like that. Sorry for the clumsy turn of phrase.
No one is defending that every club in Ireland has a very small minority of thugs who go to there matches.As Johnathan Roche said in his apology yesterday "these people are not welcome to Rovers", so supporting Rovers is not a scum bag or hooligan culture as a lot of people on this forum seem to think. We support Rovers out of love for the club and if nothing else the last twenty years have only drawn us closer.So you can see why we vigourusly defend any bad comments made about anything got to do with the club.
I understand not wanting to be tarred with the same brush, but in fairness if you refuse to say that a banner like 'F*ck off and Die' is unacceptable, then it's hard to sympathise with your stance.
As I said, I have no doubt that there are decent lads and ladies who support SRFC, but the ones I've seen outside Dalymount, Tolka and in the photo with the banner, are in my opinion not decent lads.
Of course the reptiles who shouted at Simon Webb are even lower in my estimation.
So your telling me that if TD got to a major final and brought a few hundred fans to it that they would not have a song or banner insulting Shamrock Rovers...I doubt it.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 10:39:02 AM
This thread is about Shamrock Rovers fans holiding up offensive banners.
And this thread - in case you hadn't noticed - has also dealt in detail with the stadium. Unfortunately however - and this is also in answer to AZOffaly - every time the stadium arguments falter, the lies and petty insults are dragged out.
I VERY much doubt it. And I would almost guarantee they wouldn't be wishing death on ye.
If, in some twisted parallel reality, that *did* happen, I would condemn it unreservedly.
In my opinion that banner is typical of the pseudo-macho hooligan mentality that a section of people who go to soccer matches seem to have, and certainly a section of the Rovers fans. 'F*ck Off and Die'. Big hard men alright.
What lies, hoop?
Quote from: Good Relations on April 24, 2007, 10:46:05 AM
So your telling me that if TD got to a major final and brought a few hundred fans to it that they would not have a song or banner insulting Shamrock Rovers...I doubt it.
Well they are playing St Vincents shortly in the Club championship.
Thats a pretty huge game for them, why dont you go along and see for yourself rather than speculate that they would probably do the same ::)
Incidentally the people playing down the Webb incident (even the club said "these people" so its not just one) would qualify, in my opinion, to the ever increasing "tiny minority" of Rovers fans I would class as scum. But thats just my opinion. I suppose it makes me a bigot :-*
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2007, 10:45:11 AM
I understand not wanting to be tarred with the same brush, but in fairness if you refuse to say that a banner like 'F*ck off and Die' is unacceptable, then it's hard to sympathise with your stance.
Kennedy from Thomas Davis has publicly stated that he has nothing against Rovers. Privately, he would love to put the club out of business - as illustrated by his famous "last man standing" e-mail to Croke Park HQ.
The banner stems DIRECTLY from his attitude - and is therefore perfectly logical.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 24, 2007, 10:46:05 AM
So your telling me that if TD got to a major final and brought a few hundred fans to it that they would not have a song or banner insulting Shamrock Rovers...I doubt it.
what an utter bullshit comment. Easily the most moronic thing thats ever been posted on this board.
See that's where we are never going to agree. I cannot accept that wishing death on a group of people is an acceptable riposte for any argument. And to be honest, the fact that you *do* think it is acceptable makes me despair.
So your telling that there is no bad blood in Thomas Davis regarding Rovers.What about the letter that accidently got leaked last week saying that if Rovers take on TD that there would only be one winner and also the 13 page document given to all its members which contained some pretty bad stuff regarding Rovers.
Well if there was a lot of people shouting at Simon Webb how come no one seemed to hear it.Im not defending it but its not that hard to hear a pretty distinctive voice in that end of the ground where there tends to less supporters.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2007, 10:49:59 AM
What lies, hoop?
The repeated assertion that the SRFC Ultras are "scum" or "hooligans" for example. It's a lazy, stupid and completely untrue claim. It is repeatedly made simply because they are a group of fans who have a name that people reckon is somehow sinister.
The ludicrous claims about crowd numbers at Rovers matches is another example - with some people putting the number at just a couple of hundred.
QuoteWell if there was a lot of people shouting at Simon Webb how come no one seemed to hear it.
Simon Webb seems to have heard it.
QuoteSo your telling me that if TD got to a major final and brought a few hundred fans to it that they would not have a song or banner insulting Shamrock Rovers...I doubt it.
what an utter bullshit comment. Easily the most moronic thing thats ever been posted on this board.
I have to agree and there has been some rubbish put up here over the years.
Anyway, as Hardy often points out - GAA fans don't sing songs to keep themselves entertained at matches. What happens on the field does that for them.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2007, 10:54:38 AM
See that's where we are never going to agree. I cannot accept that wishing death on a group of people is an acceptable riposte for any argument.
Oh for feck's sake - it's a turn of phrase that is probably used in just about every school playground in the country. That doesn't mean that kids are actually wishing death on each other, does it???
Kennedy however, DOES WISH death on our club.
Quote from: magpie seanie on April 24, 2007, 10:59:39 AM
QuoteWell if there was a lot of people shouting at Simon Webb how come no one seemed to hear it.
Simon Webb seems to have heard it.
and if it didn't happen, why did the club see fit to apologise for it?
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 11:02:27 AM
Kennedy however, DOES WISH death on our club.
no he doesn't
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 11:03:52 AM
no he doesn't
I'm afraid he does.
He has stated as much on many occasions - usually after a drink or two, when his tongue loosens and he forgets who's listening.
Of course the club have to apologise for something that undeniably happened but not in the context most people seem to think
Did you not read my last message
Well if there was a lot of people shouting at Simon Webb how come no one seemed to hear it.Im not defending it but its not that hard to hear a pretty distinctive voice in that end of the ground where there tends to less supporters.
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 11:02:27 AM
Oh for feck's sake - it's a turn of phrase that is probably used in just about every school playground in the country. That doesn't mean that kids are actually wishing death on each other, does it???
Thats some scary ass school you send your kids too.
"He has stated as much on many occasions - usually after a drink or two, when his tongue loosens and he forgets who's listening"
For f**k sake ::)
OK so, I heard the Rovers manager say he wishes all the poor kids in africa died.
You see just saying it doesnt make it true.
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 11:06:07 AM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 11:03:52 AM
no he doesn't
I'm afraid he does.
He has stated as much on many occasions - usually after a drink or two, when his tongue loosens and he forgets who's listening.
Oh for feck's sake - it's a turn of phrase that is probably used in just about every school playground in the country. That doesn't mean that kids are actually wishing death on each other, does it???
So it's a turn of phrase now? It doesn't mean 'F*ck off and Die'??
The fact that you are justifying it by saying schoolchildren use it but don't mean it is a bit lame to be honest. The people holding that banner were adults.
As for the lies, if someone has said that ALL Rovers fans are scum, then he or she is wrong and a liar. If they say that some are scum, well then to be honest that seems to be self evident.
The banner was scummy in my opinion.
The chanting at Simon Webb was scummy.
The fighting I saw with my own eyes was scummy, and certainly involved more than a few.
As regards people saying there are only hundreds at your games, that might be exaggerated, but then the figure of 3,000 must be an exaggeration too, as the club itself says their gat is just over 1,000.
Ok so let me get this straight, you claim TD wish death upon Rovers, you base this on a vague statement that the TD fella said it after a few drinks, this accusation having absolutely no proof.
Secondly you deny Rovers wish death on TD, when there is a photograph proudly situated on the Ultras website clearly stating "Thomas Davis GAC, f**k off and die"
Seriously :-\
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2007, 11:13:27 AM
As regards people saying there are only hundreds at your games, that might be exaggerated, but then the figure of 3,000 must be an exaggeration too, as the club itself says their gate is just over 1,000.
More rubbish. Which game are you talking about? Perhaps some meaningless one in last season's second division? Certainly not last Friday's game - where around 3,000 turned up.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 11:14:58 AM
Ok so let me get this straight, you claim TD wish death upon Rovers, you base this on a vague statement that the TD fella said it after a few drinks, this accusation having absolutely no proof.
Secondly you deny Rovers wish death on TD, when there is a photograph proudly situated on the Ultras website clearly stating "Thomas Davis GAC, f**k off and die"
Seriously :-\
hoop, answer this please.
The club's average gate is 1,089 or something like that. It was posted before, maybe in another thread. Derry City, I think, or Cork, has the highest at 3,000+.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2007, 11:19:16 AM
The club's average gate is 1,089 or something like that. It was posted before, maybe in another thread. Derry City, I think, or Cork, has the highest at 3,000+.
More rubbish. You are clearly talking about the second division. And Cork recently had 5,000 at home to Rovers.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 11:14:58 AM
Ok so let me get this straight, you claim TD wish death upon Rovers, you base this on a vague statement that the TD fella said it after a few drinks, this accusation having absolutely no proof.
Secondly you deny Rovers wish death on TD, when there is a photograph proudly situated on the Ultras website clearly stating "Thomas Davis GAC, f**k off and die"
Seriously :-\
hoop, answer this please
Average hoop. Average. If Cork has 5,000 for Rovers, and 1,000 for Bray that's an average of 3,000.
I'll look for the figures again . Sigh.
Also, wasn't it the 'First' division, not the 'Second'?
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 11:14:58 AM
Ok so let me get this straight, you claim TD wish death upon Rovers, you base this on a vague statement that the TD fella said it after a few drinks, this accusation having absolutely no proof.
His views have been heard by many people - both soccer fans and GAA fans. It may surprise you to learn that many people in Thomas Davis can't stand him, are raging about what he has dragged them into and have no problem relating what they hear him say.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2007, 11:23:28 AM
Average hoop. Average. If Cork has 5,000 for Rovers, and 1,000 for Bray that's an average of 3,000.
That's not what you said at all. And even if it was, it would be wrong. Cork get crowds of up to 8,000. And I merely referred to the "second division" in case there was confusion and some people thought first division was top flight.
QuoteThe club's average gate is 1,089 or something like that. It was posted before, maybe in another thread. Derry City, I think, or Cork, has the highest at 3,000+.
That's what I said. Maybe that's not what you *read*.
QuoteSo your telling that there is no bad blood in Thomas Davis regarding Rovers.What about the letter that accidently got leaked last week saying that if Rovers take on TD that there would only be one winner and also the 13 page document given to all its members which contained some pretty bad stuff regarding Rovers
What is this "pretty bad stuff" that you speak off? It is a big jump to compare some bad stuff to "Fcuk off and Die". ::)
QuoteWell if there was a lot of people shouting at Simon Webb how come no one seemed to hear it.Im not defending it but its not that hard to hear a pretty distinctive voice in that end of the ground where there tends to less supporters.
If no one seemed to hear it why dd the club feel the need to issue an apology. Surely they would have taken the approach if no -one heard it to state that it wasn't shouted and unless someone could prove otherwise the allegation should be withdrawn.
Obviously it was heard an therefore should be condemned without reservation.
QuoteThe repeated assertion that the SRFC Ultras are "scum" or "hooligans" for example. It's a lazy, stupid and completely untrue claim.
This is not lazy, stupid or untrue. From what I have read of first hand accounts here and on other boards there is a serious nasty element within the supporters of Rovers. If a banner of that nature was unfurled at a GAA match the people reponsible would be made take it down and in all likelihood told to leave. They are not all angels at GAA matches but that sort of behaviour is not acceptable.
QuoteQuote from: AZOffaly on Today at 10:54:38 AM
See that's where we are never going to agree. I cannot accept that wishing death on a group of people is an acceptable riposte for any argument.
Oh for feck's sake - it's a turn of phrase that is probably used in just about every school playground in the country. That doesn't mean that kids are actually wishing death on each other, does it???
I have an 8 year old son and I help coach his under 10 football and hurling squads. If any of them curse they are chastised. If one of them said anything close to what was on that banner, they would be sent home and we would speak to their parents. You may find it acceptable to speak like that but anyone with any decency in them would not accept it. It is less a turn of phrase than "we will be the last ones standing" which is a hell of a lot less threateningthan that.
QuoteQuote from: bottlethrower7 on Today at 11:03:52 AM
no he doesn't
I'm afraid he does.
He has stated as much on many occasions - usually after a drink or two, when his tongue loosens and he forgets who's listening.
If he has said something with a few drinks him have you personally heard what he has said?
Irrespective of the legal issues over the actual stadium, the lack of respect by the Shamrock fans that I have experienced is shocking. They have no respect for the due process of law, i.e TD's entitlement to question a decision made by a government body, nor have the any modicum of good grace or manners and feel that they can give 2 fingers to everyone and they will get their way because the Minister says they can. It will be interesting to see the reaction if the JR goes against them.
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 11:14:58 AM
Ok so let me get this straight, you claim TD wish death upon Rovers, you base this on a vague statement that the TD fella said it after a few drinks, this accusation having absolutely no proof.
His views have been heard by many people - both soccer fans and GAA fans. It may surprise you to learn that many people in Thomas Davis can't stand him, are raging about what he has dragged them into and have no problem relating what they hear him say.
wow.
so all this is justification for wishing death upon them?
and you, hoop, would probably be not all that surprised to learn that, not only do the vast majority of Thomas Davis people support the club's stance, but so do pretty much all the clubs in the vicinity, and the majority of their membership. Perhaps you want all of us dead too?
And I can't stand my club chairman (I'm not from Davis'). But I whole-heartedly support him in this. You see, one thing has no bearing on the other.
Lads has anyone that link to the Attendance figures I am on about? I can't find it.
I've been reading this thread with interest but as they say long time listener first time caller so here's my tuppence worth:
On the substantive issue of the stadium I have more sympathy for Rovers than for Thomas Davis. I would question the reasons behind Davis's objections.
On the banner- It was stupid and grossly offensive and if Rovers want any sympathy from the wider public they should state so.
On Friday night - nothing could excuse the abuse and the fact that the club issued a public apology indicates that there were a number of lowlifes involved.
In relation to the "supporters" of Rovers unfortunately there is a significant minority of a morons involved as has been witnessed in varous incidents over the years and I've has occasion to have words with them myself. One of the main reasons why I'm reluctant to bring my wife and kids to the games anymore. I don't think Rovers are doing enough to ensure that they don't attend games.
I speak as a long time Rovers fan and who has contact with the 400 club who I think in general are doing a good job in running the club and also as someone who donned the black and green of Davis's in the dim and distant past.
Quote from: Declan on April 24, 2007, 11:36:35 AM
I would question the reasons behind Davis's objections.
why so?
Just my reading of the situation BT.
Quote from: Declan on April 24, 2007, 11:44:33 AM
Just my reading of the situation BT.
fair enough, but I think you have to accept that you're questioning the motives/reasons of all the other clubs for backing them.
and if the implication is that theres some kind of sinister motive at play, then the brush is doing a lot of tarring.
Hoop is right.."FCUK and die"...Dont tell me you havent used similar words or phrases before to someone else.It was just there way of saying to TD that they should keep there noses out of Rovers affairs and concentrate on there own club.What did want the banner to say.."TD please leave us alone"
Regarding the last man standing letter what that idiot in TD was implying was that with enough pressure from the GAA the stadium would be solely used as a GAA stadium (well at least the majority of the time) and the whole soccer only stadiom would be blown out of the water. But then Mr. O Donohue stepped in the whole thing backfired on him :D :D
To be honest, no, I have never told somebody to 'F*ck Off and Die'. It's very worrying that ye seem so keen to brush this incident, and the Webb chants, off as being fairly insignificant or appropriate (in the case of the banner).
Its almost as if it were just a slip of the tongue.
Except they spent hours making that banner.
Knackers, defend them if you like, they are knackers.
Well if you genuinely think that Rovers fans would like to see everyon associated with TD die well then it doesn't say much for yous.
If you cant see the fact that it was only there way of saying mind your own business well then theres no more to be said to you.
If your just gonna constantly slag off and mouth off about Rovers fans you need to take a serious reality check and get a grip.
Quote from: Good Relations on April 24, 2007, 12:06:03 PM
It was just there way of saying to TD that they should keep there noses out of Rovers affairs and concentrate on there own club.
TD are lobbying for use of a stadium that will be paid for by the public purse, there is no issue with Rovers ......
I didn't realise we needed an interpreter for them. Why didn't they just say F*ck Off TD?
And I have not 'slagged off' or 'mouthed about' Rovers fans OTHER than those who
1) Wrote and carried the banner, which I consider to be distasteful and out of order.
2) Chanted abuse at Simon Webb about his late wife and
3) Engaged in pitched battles outside Dalymount Park..,.
If you expect me to NOT slag off such behaviour, then YOU need to take a 'serious reality check and get a grip'.
Quote from: stephenite on April 24, 2007, 12:22:36 PM
there is no issue with Rovers ......
Yeah, yeah..... that's what Kennedy keeps saying aswell. But only publicly. His private comments and e-mails are a different matter entirely.
Oh for f**k sake ::)
I think the very fact that posters here are defending the use of that banner completly discredits them. Firstly, anyone who would put the word f**k in a banner is an Idiot. and anyone who defends it is an idiot. secondly, wishing death on others in a banner is so base and disgusting that there is no real need to debate with anyone who supports its use. their very support finishes their argument .
But Guy, they didnt mean it apparantly :o
Quotefair enough, but I think you have to accept that you're questioning the motives/reasons of all the other clubs for backing them.
and if the implication is that theres some kind of sinister motive at play, then the brush is doing a lot of tarring.
Not questioning the other clubs motives at all BT. I'm sure they are honourable in supporting Thomas Davis in wha tthey see as the right to acess a publicly funded stadium. My reading goes back to the timing and tactics used by Davis thats all.
One of the reasons I've kept out of this thread is because of how it de-generated into chidish slagging- Doesn't serve any purpose at all.
Bigger question in my mind is what'll happen post the election!!!
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 12:25:30 PM
Quote from: stephenite on April 24, 2007, 12:22:36 PM
there is no issue with Rovers ......
Yeah, yeah..... that's what Kennedy keeps saying aswell. But only publicly. His private comments and e-mails are a different matter entirely.
allegedly? or are you going to back that up with some evidence?
You're encroaching on very dangerous territory here so I'd choose my next words carefully if I were you.
Quote from: Declan on April 24, 2007, 01:01:47 PM
Quotefair enough, but I think you have to accept that you're questioning the motives/reasons of all the other clubs for backing them.
and if the implication is that theres some kind of sinister motive at play, then the brush is doing a lot of tarring.
Not questioning the other clubs motives at all BT. I'm sure they are honourable in supporting Thomas Davis in wha tthey see as the right to acess a publicly funded stadium. My reading goes back to the timing and tactics used by Davis thats all.
fair enough. You're well entitled to your opinion.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 01:12:54 PM
allegedly? or are you going to back that up with some evidence?
You're encroaching on very dangerous territory here so I'd choose my next words carefully if I were you.
Here's an excerpt from an e-mail sent by Kennedy to John Costello of the Dublin County Board and leaked to the press:
"I have also sought to be supportive of a multi-code use (keeping soccer). Tactically I think that has to be right for now.
I'm confident that in any bout with Rovers that the GAA will be the last man standing."Now, quite apart from the pathetic "last man standing" stuff, what do you think the first bit means???
I know what it means, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think.
The first bit means that he has also sought to be supportive of a multi-code use (keeping soccer).
Tactically he thinks that has to be right for now.
;)
Oh yeah and the "last man standing" is pathetic but "f**k off and die" isnt?
Seriously :-\
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 02:26:59 PM
The first bit means that he has also sought to be supportive of a multi-code use (keeping soccer).
Tactically he thinks that has to be right for now.
You're trying to be clever - but looking very, very stupid.
You know exactly what it means , but you prefer to keep your GAA-tinted glasses on and ignore reality
QuoteHere's an excerpt from an e-mail sent by Kennedy to John Costello of the Dublin County Board and leaked to the press
What interests me is why would John Costello leak this to the press ?
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 02:32:08 PM
You're trying to be clever - but looking very, very stupid.
You know exactly what it means , but you prefer to keep your GAA-tinted glasses on and ignore reality
Hoop, in your opinion I am looking stupid, in my opinion you have exceeded stupid a long time ago, but lets not get into more childish insults and name calling ::)
p.s. I love the "Gaa tinted" glasses comments, I presume you are argueing as a balanced neutral here ? :o :o :o :o :o
Quote from: blast05 on April 24, 2007, 02:35:14 PM
QuoteHere's an excerpt from an e-mail sent by Kennedy to John Costello of the Dublin County Board and leaked to the press
What interests me is why would John Costello leak this to the press ?
Who said he did the leaking.
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 02:11:36 PM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 01:12:54 PM
allegedly? or are you going to back that up with some evidence?
You're encroaching on very dangerous territory here so I'd choose my next words carefully if I were you.
Here's an excerpt from an e-mail sent by Kennedy to John Costello of the Dublin County Board and leaked to the press:
"I have also sought to be supportive of a multi-code use (keeping soccer). Tactically I think that has to be right for now.
I'm confident that in any bout with Rovers that the GAA will be the last man standing."
Now, quite apart from the pathetic "last man standing" stuff, what do you think the first bit means???
I know what it means, but I'd be interested in hearing what you think.
the first bit means that, in case any of his club membership think that it would be in TD's best interest to seek a GAA-only stadium, he thinks, tactically speaking, that a multi-code stadium would be better (and certainly more achievable).
The second bit refers to his confidence in the strength of the club, the clubs backing him, and of the GAA as a whole to stand up to any organisation in this country, including the government. And it is a belief that the majority, if not all, of GAA members share.
next question.
Quote from: blast05 on April 24, 2007, 02:35:14 PM
QuoteHere's an excerpt from an e-mail sent by Kennedy to John Costello of the Dublin County Board and leaked to the press
What interests me is why would John Costello leak this to the press ?
I have no idea who leaked it - but the Indo got it.
my understanding was that that letter went to all of the clubs in Dublin and thats how it got out to the press.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 02:39:44 PM
the first bit means that, in case any of his club membership think that it would be in TD's best interest to seek a GAA-only stadium, he thinks, tactically speaking, that a multi-code stadium would be better (and certainly more achievable).
The second bit refers to his confidence in the strength of the club, the clubs backing him, and of the GAA as a whole to stand up to any organisation in this country, including the government. And it is a belief that the majority, if not all, of GAA members share.
So that would explain the e-mail being leaked and the Indo printing it?????
Kennedy is out to shaft Rovers and take over the stadium completely. He thinks that doing it in carefully planned stages will be slightly less obvious.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 12:25:30 PM
Quote from: stephenite on April 24, 2007, 12:22:36 PM
there is no issue with Rovers ......
Yeah, yeah..... that's what Kennedy keeps saying aswell. But only publicly. His private comments and e-mails are a different matter entirely.
allegedly? or are you going to back that up with some evidence?
You're encroaching on very dangerous territory here so I'd choose my next words carefully if I were you.
the email and letter to the members are in the public domain now, they are very damning.
i have heard kennedy talk 'off the record' about the real reasons for the challenge, as have hundreds of others.
it is interesting that no member of the association on here from Dublin is defending his motives....
Quote from: resdubwhite on April 24, 2007, 02:43:33 PM
my understanding was that that letter went to all of the clubs in Dublin and thats how it got out to the press.
No. You may be referring to one of Kennedy's various memos - one of which was 13 pages long and went out to all Thomas Davis members last week - full of blatant lies about Rovers and near libelous comments about O'Donoghue. That's also the memo which states that TD Conor Lenihan is barred from their clubhouse for supporting O'Donoghue's stance.
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 02:39:44 PM
the first bit means that, in case any of his club membership think that it would be in TD's best interest to seek a GAA-only stadium, he thinks, tactically speaking, that a multi-code stadium would be better (and certainly more achievable).
The second bit refers to his confidence in the strength of the club, the clubs backing him, and of the GAA as a whole to stand up to any organisation in this country, including the government. And it is a belief that the majority, if not all, of GAA members share.
So that would explain the e-mail being leaked and the Indo printing it?????
Kennedy is out to shaft Rovers and take over the stadium completely. He thinks that doing it in carefully planned stages will be slightly less obvious.
wow, an extreme case of paranoia there.
there was nothing untoward in that letter (not the excerpt you printed anyway). Put the negative spin on it that suits your (paranoia fuelled) argument and you can believe whatever the hell you want.
I have to say, despite the sinister stuff about Shamrock Rovers fans wishing death upon TD (whether their club or their members is unclear), the whole thing is hilarious.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 02:47:37 PM
it is interesting that no member of the association on here from Dublin is defending his motives....
brilliant. absolutely brilliant.
you continue to astound dublinfella.
now I think you're just taking the piss altogether. Can I ask you, are you ONeill or someone pretending to be a shamrock rovers supporter on a windup?
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 02:51:23 PM
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 02:39:44 PM
the first bit means that, in case any of his club membership think that it would be in TD's best interest to seek a GAA-only stadium, he thinks, tactically speaking, that a multi-code stadium would be better (and certainly more achievable).
The second bit refers to his confidence in the strength of the club, the clubs backing him, and of the GAA as a whole to stand up to any organisation in this country, including the government. And it is a belief that the majority, if not all, of GAA members share.
So that would explain the e-mail being leaked and the Indo printing it?????
Kennedy is out to shaft Rovers and take over the stadium completely. He thinks that doing it in carefully planned stages will be slightly less obvious.
wow, an extreme case of paranoia there.
there was nothing untoward in that letter (not the excerpt you printed anyway). Put the negative spin on it that suits your (paranoia fuelled) argument and you can believe whatever the hell you want.
I have to say, despite the sinister stuff about Shamrock Rovers fans wishing death upon TD (whether their club or their members is unclear), the whole thing is hilarious.
nothing untoword in the letter?
announcing the banning a minister from the clubhouse? instructing members how to vote in a general election? (apolitical organisation my arse).
thats before the facts and figures are dissected...
I appreciate that loyalty to the association and its goals are central to the GAA and its success, but BT maybe, just maybe, a senior member of a club has lost the run of himself and needs to be pulled aside and told to keep the noise down.
try thinking this one through from how the outside world see it.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 02:51:23 PM
there was nothing untoward in that letter (not the excerpt you printed anyway). Put the negative spin on it that suits your (paranoia fuelled) argument and you can believe whatever the hell you want.
Complete and utter rubbish. Are you also telling me that the Indo got it wrong??
People on here wanted evidence - they get evidence - and they choose to simply ignore it.
Absolutely PATHETIC.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 02:47:37 PM
it is interesting that no member of the association on here from Dublin is defending his motives....
Depends what motives you are thinking of dublinfella, its hard to tell :D
I'm from Dublin and I agree 100% with the stance of Thomas Davis
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 02:59:18 PM
People on here wanted evidence - they get evidence - and they choose to simply ignore it.
Absolutely PATHETIC.
It wasnt ignored, it was explained, and explained well by bottlethrower.
Look you are really going round in circles here and arent really doing the already damaged reputation of the Rovers fans any good here.
Give it a rest eh?
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 02:59:18 PM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 02:51:23 PM
there was nothing untoward in that letter (not the excerpt you printed anyway). Put the negative spin on it that suits your (paranoia fuelled) argument and you can believe whatever the hell you want.
Complete and utter rubbish. Are you also telling me that the Indo got it wrong??
People on here wanted evidence - they get evidence - and they choose to simply ignore it.
Absolutely PATHETIC.
yes, evidence, not spin.
try again
IMO both sides have valid arguments and both have their valid points.
Despite what your partners might say, size does matter. Unless TD have a working plan for at least 6,000 seats in a dual usage scenario then Rovers should have the priority use.
If there is a viable plan for a dual use stadium, then GAA pitch size is not a major impediment to soccer spectators.
They should try spotting a hurley ball in full flight some 150m away ?
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 03:06:03 PM
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 02:59:18 PM
People on here wanted evidence - they get evidence - and they choose to simply ignore it.
Absolutely PATHETIC.
It wasnt ignored, it was explained, and explained well by bottlethrower.
Look you are really going round in circles here and arent really doing the already damaged reputation of the Rovers fans any good here.
Give it a rest eh?
bottlethrower also admitted he hasnt read the stuff.
we are in full rocket scientist mode here today boys.
i posted the full 13 page memo on the main forum before the mods closed it.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 02:58:23 PM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 02:51:23 PM
Quote from: hoop on April 24, 2007, 02:45:36 PM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 02:39:44 PM
the first bit means that, in case any of his club membership think that it would be in TD's best interest to seek a GAA-only stadium, he thinks, tactically speaking, that a multi-code stadium would be better (and certainly more achievable).
The second bit refers to his confidence in the strength of the club, the clubs backing him, and of the GAA as a whole to stand up to any organisation in this country, including the government. And it is a belief that the majority, if not all, of GAA members share.
So that would explain the e-mail being leaked and the Indo printing it?????
Kennedy is out to shaft Rovers and take over the stadium completely. He thinks that doing it in carefully planned stages will be slightly less obvious.
wow, an extreme case of paranoia there.
there was nothing untoward in that letter (not the excerpt you printed anyway). Put the negative spin on it that suits your (paranoia fuelled) argument and you can believe whatever the hell you want.
I have to say, despite the sinister stuff about Shamrock Rovers fans wishing death upon TD (whether their club or their members is unclear), the whole thing is hilarious.
nothing untoword in the letter?
announcing the banning a minister from the clubhouse? instructing members how to vote in a general election? (apolitical organisation my arse).
thats before the facts and figures are dissected...
I appreciate that loyalty to the association and its goals are central to the GAA and its success, but BT maybe, just maybe, a senior member of a club has lost the run of himself and needs to be pulled aside and told to keep the noise down.
try thinking this one through from how the outside world see it.
Part of the reason for the success of the GAA is that decisions are typically made based on what is best for the organisation, not what the perception (from the outside world) is.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 03:08:53 PM
bottlethrower also admitted he hasnt read the stuff.
no I didn't. I did read it.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 24, 2007, 03:10:22 PM
Part of the reason for the success of the GAA is that decisions are typically made based on what is best for the organisation, not what the perception (from the outside world) is.
Yes, we had gathered that.
"bottlethrower also admitted he hasnt read the stuff.
we are in full rocket scientist mode here today boys"
So you make up a lie to justify calling us stupid ::)
Why we even entertain you is beyond me ???
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 03:17:43 PM
"bottlethrower also admitted he hasnt read the stuff.
we are in full rocket scientist mode here today boys"
So you make up a lie to justify calling us stupid ::)
Why we even entertain you is beyond me ???
If you choose to believe nothing underhand in the two documents Kennedy has written on the subject that have found themselves in the public domain thats your lookout.
If you believe he represents the spirit of the GAA and its ideals in this course of action, we have wildly deffering views on how the association should go about its business.
Could someone go on to google map, find the site of the proposed stadium, save the image, edit it by putting a red line around the perimeter of the site and based on the existing strucutre that is there, i.e.: partially completed stand which i presume is the length of a soccer pitch? .... then people should get some idea re what is possible and what is not.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 04:05:22 PM
If you believe he represents the spirit of the GAA and its ideals in this course of action, we have wildly deffering views on how the association should go about its business.
yes, we obviously do.
And whose opinions matter more? Yours? Or ours?
"we have wildly deffering views on how the association should go about its business"
Finally something we can agree on.
Best leave it to the members then eh? ;)
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 04:05:22 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 03:17:43 PM
"bottlethrower also admitted he hasnt read the stuff.
we are in full rocket scientist mode here today boys"
So you make up a lie to justify calling us stupid ::)
Why we even entertain you is beyond me ???
If you choose to believe nothing underhand in the two documents Kennedy has written on the subject that have found themselves in the public domain thats your lookout.
If you believe he represents the spirit of the GAA and its ideals in this course of action, we have wildly deffering views on how the association should go about its business.
Incdidentally, it was pointed out that you lied about Bottlethrower, and when caught out you go on about whether I believe Kennedy or not?!??
Lets just pretend that never happened eh? :o
Amazing
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 04:25:25 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 04:05:22 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 03:17:43 PM
"bottlethrower also admitted he hasnt read the stuff.
we are in full rocket scientist mode here today boys"
So you make up a lie to justify calling us stupid ::)
Why we even entertain you is beyond me ???
If you choose to believe nothing underhand in the two documents Kennedy has written on the subject that have found themselves in the public domain thats your lookout.
If you believe he represents the spirit of the GAA and its ideals in this course of action, we have wildly deffering views on how the association should go about its business.
Incdidentally, it was pointed out that you lied about Bottlethrower, and when caught out you go on about whether I believe Kennedy or not?!??
Lets just pretend that never happened eh? :o
Amazing
my reading of bottlethrowers post was that he had only read the bit that hoop had posted up here.
hardly a lie now is it.
back in your box
You said Bottlethrower has admitted himself he hasnt read the stuff.
Thats not misreading the post, thats a deliberate lie, not a misunderstanding.
::)
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 04:39:05 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 04:25:25 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 04:05:22 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 03:17:43 PM
"bottlethrower also admitted he hasnt read the stuff.
we are in full rocket scientist mode here today boys"
So you make up a lie to justify calling us stupid ::)
Why we even entertain you is beyond me ???
If you choose to believe nothing underhand in the two documents Kennedy has written on the subject that have found themselves in the public domain thats your lookout.
If you believe he represents the spirit of the GAA and its ideals in this course of action, we have wildly deffering views on how the association should go about its business.
Incdidentally, it was pointed out that you lied about Bottlethrower, and when caught out you go on about whether I believe Kennedy or not?!??
Lets just pretend that never happened eh? :o
Amazing
my reading of bottlethrowers post was that he had only read the bit that hoop had posted up here.
hardly a lie now is it.
back in your box
that was the piece hoop referred to, and it was the piece I addressed.
not a lie, no. More like an inability to read what people are writing. But then again, whats new.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 04:43:10 PM
You said Bottlethrower has admitted himself he hasnt read the stuff.
Thats not misreading the post, thats a deliberate lie, not a misunderstanding.
::)
and again when the thread doenst go the way of the cosy consensus, the gloves come off.
grow the f**k up and debate the topic
"the gloves come off"
You are the one saying "grow the f**k up" and "back in your box"
You posted a lie / mistruth to boost your argument and I pulled you up on it as it was relevant to the topic we were dicsussing.
And dont give me this "debate the topic" crap either, the threads about Rovers Ultras and I have had plenty to say about them ;)
Quote from: dublinfella on April 24, 2007, 04:50:48 PM
[and again when the thread doenst go the way of the cosy consensus, the gloves come off.
Oh so I presume you mean you were "winning" the debate? ???
This thread has officially deteriorated to shite.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 24, 2007, 04:43:10 PM
Thats not misreading the post, thats a deliberate lie, not a misunderstanding.
The misunderstanding appears to come from the fact that I posted part of Kennedy's E-MAIL - and Dublinfella confused it with Kennedy's MEMO. They're equally poisonous.
You're very quick to issue jibes and insults, yet - like almost everyone else here - completely uninterested in Kennedy's sly, underhand tactics, the endless lies he has spread about Rovers and the incredibly arrogant and condescending tone of his comments aimed at O'Donoghue.
Just like to say I'm thoroughly enjoying not being part of this thread any more ;D
Carry on.
deiseach, I'm joining you on the bench. the triple tag team of turpitutude is too much.
i'd say o donoghue wouldn't shead a tear if the stadium was lost in an earthquake tomorrow. what a mess- he really didn't think this one out well at all. going to cost FF in the election me thinks
Quote from: INDIANA on April 24, 2007, 07:48:03 PM
i'd say o donoghue wouldn't shead a tear if the stadium was lost in an earthquake tomorrow. what a mess- he really didn't think this one out well at all. going to cost FF in the election me thinks
Can someone explain to me how?
All parties are supporting the Minister on this, where is this 'backlash' coming from and going to?
just the general malaise towards FF that exists out there- people are looking for an excuse not to vote for them and this wil give them one. i know FF are preparing themselves for the worst out there and they are doing their best to keep the issue out of the news.
Interesting quote from Shelbourne Manager Dermot Keely in the Indo to-day. Referring to complaints by Shamrock Rovers re the state of the pitch in Tolka Park, he is quoted as saying "May I remind them Shels own Tolka Park and Rovers are tenants. If they do'nt like it here then they can find somewhere else to play". I think that sums up Rovers perfectly and would apply to the criticisms re the suitability of Croke Park for soccer internationals as well.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 24, 2007, 06:32:59 PM
deiseach, I'm joining you on the bench. the triple tag team of turpitutude is too much.
I'm not even on the bench, i'm at the bar for the apres match pints.
Lets just see what the judicial review-new minister makes of it.
Still find it funny that someone backing up a banner saying f**k off and die, can possibly moan about the tone of an e-mail.
but there you go. That's the double standards we're expected to accept.
40 pages of hissy fits over a bloody banner - yet complete indifference to an underhand, slanderous and hate-filled campaign led by Kennedy against Rovers - which is what the banner was reacting to.
Well done.
Indeed. That's that then. Or are you going to insist on getting the last word in? ;D :-*
Quote from: tayto on April 25, 2007, 07:09:25 PM
Indeed. That's that then. Or are you going to insist on getting the last word in? ;D :-*
Grab All Association-GAA,you really do live up to your name.a joke organisation for a pathetic bunch of people..As history has told us,Irish people and common sence do not go hand in hand.
QuoteAs history has told us,Irish people and common sence
:D - And this isn't intentional either
Quote from: hoop on April 25, 2007, 06:23:59 PM
40 pages of hissy fits over a bloody banner - yet complete indifference to an underhand, slanderous and hate-filled campaign led by Kennedy against Rovers - which is what the banner was reacting to.
Well done.
1) Theres other threads about the stadium
2) a lot of this thread discusses the stadium
for the love of god let it go ::)
p.s. That Willo guy is great craic, you should all read his previous posts.
This is getting really boring now.
I had an open mind initally on the topic and read with interest the arguments on both sides. I have now gained enough information to make an informed position.
The Shamrock rovers fans/PR dept on here have become nothing short of childish argumentitive liers, whose double stanadards know no bounds.
I would like to finish on this note...... Its fairly well acknowledged that there will be a new minister involved after the election. Shamrock Rovers have a history of financial irregularity and mismanagement, coupled with the ineptitude to secure their OWN ground. The chairman of TD is 100 % correct in doing whats best for those who elected him. The law of the land seen fit to TD a judical review, thereby acknowledging the strength of their case.
In my opinion i hope TD take them all the way.
Quote from: Bensars on April 26, 2007, 10:06:08 AM
I had an open mind initally on the topic and read with interest the arguments on both sides. I have now gained enough information to make an informed position.
The Shamrock rovers fans/PR dept on here have become nothing short of childish argumentitive liers, whose double stanadards know no bounds.
I would like to finish on this note...... Its fairly well acknowledged that there will be a new minister involved after the election. Shamrock Rovers have a history of financial irregularity and mismanagement, coupled with the ineptitude to secure their OWN ground. The chairman of TD is 100 % correct in doing whats best for those who elected him. The law of the land seen fit to TD a judical review, thereby acknowledging the strength of their case.
In my opinion i hope TD take them all the way.
The above - in GAA circles - is described as "having an open mind".
Well done.
And the Gaa are apparantly "fond of generalisation" ::)
Can we just end this now and let the courts decide?
Or do you need to have one last dig?
Quote from: hoop on April 26, 2007, 10:08:08 AM
The above - in GAA circles - is described as "having an open mind".
Well done.
Quote from: Bensars on April 26, 2007, 10:06:08 AM
This is getting really boring now.
I had an open mind initally on the topic and read with interest the arguments on both sides. I have now gained enough information to make an informed position.
Once again you conviently omit information to suit your your case.
Please read again. The word you are missing is initially ( meaning at the start, beforehand etc). PleaseIf your having a problem with understanding this, maybe we should refer you to the shamrock rovers signwriters. They seem to have a grasp on the english language and getting their point across
Quote from: Bensars on April 26, 2007, 10:15:51 AM
Please read again. The word you are missing is initially ( meaning at the start, beforehand etc). PleaseIf your having a problem with understanding this, maybe we should refer you to the shamrock rovers signwriters. They seem to have a grasp on the english language and getting their point across
Ah - so you have decided NOT to have an open mind after all. You would prefer to be selfish, bigoted and blinkered - just like Kennedy.
Again - well done. You're a credit to the GAA.
Over and out.
selfish bigoted and blinkered? listen chief, you come across as exactly the same, with childish thrown in, so we'll see you in court. adios!
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 26, 2007, 10:13:14 AM
Or do you need to have one last dig?
That answers that question! ;)
Thrown his toys out of the pram because we didnt buy into his half baked arguement that rovers deserve a tailor made stadium ideal for their needs and the GAA should agree that's best for the community and just agree to build our own. hilarious. Then calls me a bigot because i dont agree the stadium should be tailor made for soccer and then refuses to denounce a deeply offensive banner while whinging about the tone of an e-mail, saying it's sinister. The kid is a ball of contradiction. As for Willo. top of the class young man, you're an example to us all, who's a clever boy. ;D
Anyone care to comment about the punishment handed down to the person ( I thought it was persons) who offended Simon Webb last week?
QuoteAnyone care to comment about the punishment handed down to the person ( I thought it was persons) who offended Simon Webb last week?
Individual banned from Rovers games
26 Apr 2007.PRESS RELEASE - Issued 25.04.07
Following the highly personal verbal abuse suffered by Simon Webb at the Shamrock Rover-Drogheda United game on April 20th at Tolka Park, Shamrock Rovers conducted an investigation into the incident. After studying CCTV footage and receiving several eye witness accounts, the club's board of directors is satisfied that the perpetrator of the abuse has been identified. As a consequence that individual is banned from future Shamrock Rovers games, both home and away, and with immediate effect. The individual has been informed by telephone and is being issued with written confirmation.
Fair play to them - should they name and shame him???
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2007, 03:41:05 PM
QuoteAnyone care to comment about the punishment handed down to the person ( I thought it was persons) who offended Simon Webb last week?
Individual banned from Rovers games
26 Apr 2007.PRESS RELEASE - Issued 25.04.07
Following the highly personal verbal abuse suffered by Simon Webb at the Shamrock Rover-Drogheda United game on April 20th at Tolka Park, Shamrock Rovers conducted an investigation into the incident. After studying CCTV footage and receiving several eye witness accounts, the club's board of directors is satisfied that the perpetrator of the abuse has been identified. As a consequence that individual is banned from future Shamrock Rovers games, both home and away, and with immediate effect. The individual has been informed by telephone and is being issued with written confirmation.
Fair play to them - should they name and shame him???
Its all very well on paper but the cant stop their fans throwing pig heads on the the pitch and generally being knackers i'd love to know how they will stop him
Quote from: Declan on April 26, 2007, 03:41:05 PM
QuoteAnyone care to comment about the punishment handed down to the person ( I thought it was persons) who offended Simon Webb last week?
Individual banned from Rovers games
26 Apr 2007.PRESS RELEASE - Issued 25.04.07
Following the highly personal verbal abuse suffered by Simon Webb at the Shamrock Rover-Drogheda United game on April 20th at Tolka Park, Shamrock Rovers conducted an investigation into the incident. After studying CCTV footage and receiving several eye witness accounts, the club's board of directors is satisfied that the perpetrator of the abuse has been identified. As a consequence that individual is banned from future Shamrock Rovers games, both home and away, and with immediate effect. The individual has been informed by telephone and is being issued with written confirmation.
Fair play to them - should they name and shame him???
And tar and feather the f**Ker.
if any one missed it there was a piece on Rovers links to the Tallaght community on RTE's capitald tonight.
http://www.rte.ie/news/capitald/ (http://www.rte.ie/news/capitald/)
First 5 1/2 minuites.
Maybe people can start to see what Kennedy is so worried about.
Good to see that they banned the gouger involved in abusing Webb, wonder is that enough for some of the high horses on here.
does that mean your average gate is now down to 2,999?
thats terrible
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 26, 2007, 10:48:28 PM
does that mean your average gate is now down to 2,999?
thats terrible
im sure they will cope.
how many sepctators from the row in Tyrone got banned?
Glass houses etc.
"Good to see that they banned the gouger involved in abusing Webb, wonder is that enough for some of the high horses on here"
If expecting the club to punish a sc**bag who abused a player over his wifes death is being on a high horse then I'm happy to throw on the ould jodphurs and gallop away!
how many sepctators from the row in Tyrone got banned?
As far as I know one aswell. What's your point?
Quote from: supersarsfields on April 27, 2007, 10:29:45 AM
As far as I know one aswell. What's your point?
None. An official maybe, but the fans involved simply drift away and - as usual - nobody knows who they were. Allegedly.
----------
Ardboe official banned for 48 weeks
Thursday, 19 April 2007
An Ardboe club official has been handed a 48-week ban arising from Sunday's abandoned Tyrone Football League game against Dromore.
Referee Michael Hughes abandoned the game in the second-half after a number of violent incidents had taken place.
In addition to the 12-month ban handed to the Ardboe official, a Dromore player has got a four-week suspension.
Tyrone's competitions control committee has declared the game null and void and fined both clubs a three-figure sum.
The Tyrone county board is not expected to make any official comment on the sanctions for a number of days as both clubs have the option of launching appeals.
(http://www.best-horror-movies.com/image-files/the-ring-samara-from-television.jpg)
The fans weren't involved so why would any of them get suspended? It was the people on the pitch resulting in an official and a player both getting suspended.
xdeal me in got there ahead of me.
And if your being like that, you expect us to believe it was just one person chanting and it was heard by the player????
Yeah, the "these people" from the Rovers statement was only one :D
Why couldnt people have shut him up if it was only one person.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 26, 2007, 10:38:48 PM
Good to see that they banned the gouger involved in abusing Webb, wonder is that enough for some of the high horses on here.
Never content, prepare yourself for the "Hoops fans grass on supporter" shocker headlines.
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on April 27, 2007, 11:31:50 AM
The fans weren't involved so why would any of them get suspended?
Violent incidents to be investigated
Monday, 16 April 2007 12:21
GAA chiefs in Tyrone are to probe violent incidents which led to the abandonment of a match between two of the county's top teams at the weekend.
The Division 1A league game between Ardboe and defending champions Dromore was cut short 20 minutes from the end after fighting broke out, involving players and supporters.Top inter-county referee Michael Hughes, who was officiating at the game, called an end to the action after efforts to restore order failed.
Aodhán Harkin, secretary of the county's Competitions Control Committee, said that an immediate investigation will be ordered, with the Disciplinary Committee set to meet late this week.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 27, 2007, 02:17:50 PM
Agreed, all reasonable debate is now gone, its all lies and insults at this stage.
Excuse me while I piss myself laughing, Mr. Reasonable.
Not only is it complete denial about Kennedy's doings - it's now also complete denial regarding RTE web reports.
Go on, ban me - before I post even more unpleasant truths.
Pathetic.
Quote from: hoop on April 27, 2007, 02:49:55 PM
Pathetic.
yes, you are. oh nooo don't insult us again, we couldnt take it.
tell you what, call me a bigot again because I don't care about Shamrock rivers fans seating arrangements.
you FAI folk and your over use of the term.
Now tell me why booing rangers players isn't bigotry.
Quote from: hoop on April 27, 2007, 02:49:55 PM
Go on, ban me - before I post even more unpleasant truths.
Pathetic.
Nobody wants you banned, unlike the Ultras we dont censor opinion on our forums.
Its just our opinion that this debate has gone to shite.
Are you not bored after 43 pages?
Go on, give us your predictions on the club championships
Do you fancy Thomas Davis V Vincents next week?
As if anyone would bother banning him. All you're doing is living up to stereotype. ::)
I'd say at the start of this thread people had an "idea" from hearsay (some from experience) as to what Rovers fans are like.
Now thanks to Good Relations, Hoop, Dublinfella and Willo they have actual interaction to base our opinions on.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 27, 2007, 03:24:22 PM
I'd say at the start of this thread people had an "idea" from hearsay (some from experience) as to what Rovers fans are like.
Now thanks to Good Relations, Hoop, Dublinfella and Willo they have actual interaction to base our opinions on.
So I am a Rovers fan because 2 years ago I said this course of action would be madness?
2 years later all capital grants in Dublin to GAA clubs are suspended. Who told you that would happen (hint, me)
The standard of debate on this site is shocking. Because I use my own brain and think TD are acting recklessly (as seen by banning a govt minister from their clubhouse) I must be a Rovers plant.
Grow the f**k up.
Dublinfella, you have 410 posts here, about 408 are defending Rovers.
Therefore its reasonable to presume you are a Rovers fan ::)
I didnt call you a "plant" just a fan, who is entitled to come here and argue your point.
And from those points argued and those points of other Rovers fans on here I commented that people have something concrete rather than hearsay to base their opinions of Rovers fans.
I didnt say the opinions should be postive or negative, they can make their own minds up on that.
And you tell me to "grow the f**k up" ?
:-\
30 years ago willo, 30 years, will you ever get over it? ::)
Quote from: hoop on April 27, 2007, 06:26:10 PM
Soccer fan I said.
Snooping around - looking for information on Kennedy's "memo" - no debate - and pretending to have an interest in the stadium from a soccer viewpoint. I notice it didn't take the mods long to catch you out.
Must try harder.
What about Dublinfella posting here for ages saying "we" every time in reference to the GAA, and claiming not to be a Rovers fans.
Everyone knew he was bulshitting but he didnt get banned for it!
From todays Indo
Stadium row is not cricket
As many before me, I express my congratulations to the Irish cricket team on their terrific performances at the World Cup and for putting Irish cricket on the map.
I note in the euphoria of the welcome at Dublin airport on Tuesday, the Minister for Sport and Tourism Mr O'Donoghue kindly offered government funding and support for the establishment of a new national cricket ground.
While such a move would be very welcome, the Minister is obviously not learning the lessons taught recently by the whole Tallaght Stadium controversy.
Unless the cricket pitch and crease are adjusted to accommodate Gaelic games, surely the completion of such a ground will be the subject of another long term and costly judicial review courtesy of the GAA and its member clubs?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 28, 2007, 03:02:39 PM
From todays Indo
Stadium row is not cricket
As many before me, I express my congratulations to the Irish cricket team on their terrific performances at the World Cup and for putting Irish cricket on the map.
I note in the euphoria of the welcome at Dublin airport on Tuesday, the Minister for Sport and Tourism Mr O'Donoghue kindly offered government funding and support for the establishment of a new national cricket ground.
While such a move would be very welcome, the Minister is obviously not learning the lessons taught recently by the whole Tallaght Stadium controversy.
Unless the cricket pitch and crease are adjusted to accommodate Gaelic games, surely the completion of such a ground will be the subject of another long term and costly judicial review courtesy of the GAA and its member clubs?
Yes because irish cricket are a professional team who want a free ground because they couldnt manage their finances . no wait thats rovers , and FYI cricket grounds tend to be quite big so i'm sure Gaelic games will fit
Quote from: Gnevin on April 28, 2007, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 28, 2007, 03:02:39 PM
From todays Indo
Stadium row is not cricket
As many before me, I express my congratulations to the Irish cricket team on their terrific performances at the World Cup and for putting Irish cricket on the map.
I note in the euphoria of the welcome at Dublin airport on Tuesday, the Minister for Sport and Tourism Mr O'Donoghue kindly offered government funding and support for the establishment of a new national cricket ground.
While such a move would be very welcome, the Minister is obviously not learning the lessons taught recently by the whole Tallaght Stadium controversy.
Unless the cricket pitch and crease are adjusted to accommodate Gaelic games, surely the completion of such a ground will be the subject of another long term and costly judicial review courtesy of the GAA and its member clubs?
Yes because irish cricket are a professional team who want a free ground because they couldnt manage their finances . no wait thats rovers , and FYI cricket grounds tend to be quite big so i'm sure Gaelic games will fit
Again with the free.
And again with the inalienable right the GAA have to play wherever they want while holding rule 42.
Dublinfella, your line of argument has been debunked, discredited and demolished innumerable times in this thread alone and yet you continue to trot out the propaganda. You're barefaced and brassnecked to a degree seldom witnessed around here, or anywhere else, Fearon apart. The whole thing is tiresome at this stage, but once more, for the record, just in case anyone here isn't aware of the truth at this stage:
1. The current proposal sees the capital cost of the stadium 99.1% paid for from public funds. Shamrock Rovers have contributed €100K of a projected €11M. To all intents and purposes, that is a free stadium, or as near as makes your constant challenging of the fact look totally ridiculous.
2. Your bile about what you term the GAA's "inalienable right the GAA have to play wherever they want while holding rule 42" is not only spiteful and petulant, it's nonsensical. The GAA has fronted up majority funding for all of its facilities that I know of. On the other hand, I don't know of any soccer club that owns its own facilities. Isn't the truth the exact opposite of your stupid contention? Isn't it Irish soccer, not the GAA, that's constantly bleating to be accommodated in facilities owned and paid for by others?
3. Thomas Davis GAA club has every right to seek a review of a dodgy ministerial edict that overturned to their disadvantage an undertaking by a public authority. A judge in open court has decided this. No amount of bluster from you can change that fact and your constant wailing about it here is becoming a bit of a joke.
Quote from: Hardy on April 28, 2007, 04:19:35 PM
1. The current proposal sees the capital cost of the stadium 99.1% paid for from public funds. Shamrock Rovers have contributed €100K of a projected €11M. To all intents and purposes, that is a free stadium, or as near as makes your constant challenging of the fact look totally ridiculous.
that would be €100k this year, on top of the €2m they put in before. Where is the €11m figure coming from? Is that not the cost if TD win to redisgn and pull down existing structures?
What are the GAA offereing to put in? Zero. So its a scandal if soccer gets a majority free stadium, but just and right if the GAA get it 100% free?
Quote from: Hardy on April 28, 2007, 04:19:35 PM2. Your bile about what you term the GAA's "inalienable right the GAA have to play wherever they want while holding rule 42" is not only spiteful and petulant, it's nonsensical. The GAA has fronted up majority funding for all of its facilities that I know of. On the other hand, I don't know of any soccer club that owns its own facilities. Isn't the truth the exact opposite of your stupid contention? Isn't it Irish soccer, not the GAA, that's constantly bleating to be accommodated in facilities owned and paid for by others?
So its just the percentage that the GAA put in thats the difference?
A comment like 'no soccer club owns its own facilities' is beneath contempt. Seriously?
Quote from: Hardy on April 28, 2007, 04:19:35 PM3. Thomas Davis GAA club has every right to seek a review of a dodgy ministerial edict that overturned to their disadvantage an undertaking by a public authority. A judge in open court has decided this. No amount of bluster from you can change that fact and your constant wailing about it here is becoming a bit of a joke.
I agree they have a 'right' to enter a nuiscance suit, but if you recall, my angle was the strategic mistake suing the state would be. And its turned out worse than I predicted with all GAA clubs in the SDCC having their grants and planning permission applications frozen. Lucan Sarsfields have had public lands withdrawn from them.
As for the political fallout from banning Conor Lenihan from the clubhouse, it will be huge.
But the blind support continues for a man who has clearly breached the GAA's apolitical rules.
Who put in €2M before?
Where did I say 'no soccer club owns its own facilities'? I don't know of any. I don't take any interest in soccer. But my substabntive point stands. I only ever hear of soccer begging for accommodation. GAA people tend to get on with it and build their own.
By the way, where is the documentation for your contention that "all GAA clubs in the SDCC" have had "their grants and planning permission applications frozen"? If that were the case, it would be outrageous discrimiation and victimisation and our friend the judge would be back in action pronto.
Quote from: Hardy on April 28, 2007, 04:44:38 PM
Who put in €2M before?
Where did I say 'no soccer club owns its own facilities'? I don't know of any. I don't take any interest in soccer. But my substabntive point stands. I only ever hear of soccer begging for accommodation. GAA people tend to get on with it and build their own.
By the way, where is the documentation for your contention that "all GAA clubs in the SDCC" have had "their grants and planning permission applications frozen"? If that were the case, it would be outrageous discrimiation and victimisation and our friend the judge would be back in action pronto.
€2m from Rovers over 5 years approx 10 years ago IIRC.
Are TD 'tending to get on with it and build their own' here? Its a juvenile way to try and make a point. Clearly soccer clubs own their own facilities and use council pitches too, as to the GAA.
It was in the Sun and Mail about 2 weeks ago and I have seen it on the ground, my club is included.there is no 'discrimination and victimisation' because SDCC are waiting to see the outcome of a court case that has been taken questioning the legalities around state funding of capital infrastructure and can they fund individual sports.
I told you all this 18 months ago....
Quote€2m from Rovers over 5 years approx 10 years ago IIRC.
Oh THAT Shamrock Rovers! Aren't they the asset-stripping, debt-defaulting, employee-cheating, supplier-screwing Shamrock Rovers that you keep telling us have nothing to do with TODAY'S Shamrock Rovers? In which case what is the relevance of their 'contribution'? (And where did they get the money, btw?)
As Lone Shark pointed out to you more than once, you can't have it both ways. Either this is a different Shamrock Rovers, in which case their contribution has been €100K, or it's the same Shamrock Rovers, in which case they owe us, the taxpayers, their former players and their cheated suppliers a whole lot of money. Which is it?
It's this sort of tendentious nonsense and your facility to ignore the truths that don't suit you and to trot out again and again the stuff that's been debunked, that provoked my first post today.
Quote from: Hardy on April 28, 2007, 05:22:46 PM
Quote€2m from Rovers over 5 years approx 10 years ago IIRC.
Oh THAT Shamrock Rovers! Aren't they the asset-stripping, debt-defaulting, employee-cheating, supplier-screwing Shamrock Rovers that you keep telling us have nothing to do with TODAY'S Shamrock Rovers? In which case what is the relevance of their 'contribution'? (And where did they get the money, btw?)
As Lone Shark pointed out to you more than once, you can't have it both ways. Either this is a different Shamrock Rovers, in which case their contribution has been €100K, or it's the same Shamrock Rovers, in which case they owe us, the taxpayers, their former players and their cheated suppliers a whole lot of money. Which is it?
It's this sort of tendentious nonsense and your facility to ignore the truths that don't suit you and to trot out again and again the stuff that's been debunked, that provoked my first post today.
Hardy, despite popular wisdome I am no more a Rovers fan than the man on the moon.
Answer the GAA related points I raised.
Why is it ok for TD to get a stadium for free and not Rovers (even though thats at best disputed) and the consequnces of suing the state coming into view.
Answer my question first about which version of Shamrock Rovers we're talking about.
Quote from: Hardy on April 28, 2007, 05:30:10 PM
Answer my question first about which version of Shamrock Rovers we're talking about.
I couldnt give two fucks. My point is that there is a huge amount of bullshit flying round GAA circles on this, most obvious that Rovers are getting a 'free' stadium. Its not true.
Just for a second assume I am who I say I am, a member of a GAA club near TD. I was 100% right when I predicted that grants would be withheld and 100% correct in the reasons for it. I was 100% correct about the political backing the GAA havent got (mind you no-one could predict that Kennedy would have a govt minister removed from the clubhouse).
You are patently avoiding the substantive point. TD are behaving in a manner against the constitution of the GAA and in an anathema to wht the association claims to stand for.
Again, why is it ok for td to get a free ground but not rovers?
It's not that the GAA get a free stadium, it's that the Tallaght community get a Govt. built stadium that can be used by all the relevant field sports in the area for the purposes that they need. Adult GAA can't be played in a stadium that's being built by the govt..If it was an ice rink or a swimming pool being built then any local sports organization that could use those facilities should be able to do so.for example if the tallaght synchronised swimming club build their own pool then they can decide if they allow tallaght swimming club to use the facilities or not.But if the govt. build it then the pool should be built to suit the purposes of all aqua related sports in the locality.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 28, 2007, 05:41:35 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 28, 2007, 05:30:10 PM
Answer my question first about which version of Shamrock Rovers we're talking about.
I couldnt give two fucks.
So no answer then, because you know it's unanswerable. You can't have it both ways and you can't adduce SR's putative €2M contribution to bolster your argument and then say it's not relevant. You'll quote it again in the future, I've no doubt, and we'll have to go through all this again.
QuoteMy point is that there is a huge amount of bullshit flying round GAA circles on this, most obvious that Rovers are getting a 'free' stadium. Its not true.
I've refuted this comprehensively at least twice today alone. And still you carry on. Alright – again – it's substantially free - €100K in a cost of many millions. The €2M is a chimera, as I've shown.
QuoteAgain, why is it ok for td to get a free ground but not rovers?
This is an unbelievable contortion. Who is suggesting that the issue is about a fee stadium for TD? The issue is about a free (for all intents and purposes) stadium for Shamrock Rovers, and the specific EXCLUSION of TD. So, in case you still don't get it, your question should read "why is it ok for Shamrock Rovers to get a stadium free and GAA clubs to be specifically excluded, having initially being promised inclusion?" Both questions are an avoidance of the issue, in any case. The question is why should TD and the GAA meekly accept O'Donoghue's dictat, and the reversal of a written undertaken from the public authority?
And now I have better things to do with my Saturday evening.
Quote from: Hardy on April 28, 2007, 06:18:45 PM
And now I have better things to do with my Saturday evening.
(http://www.ppowgallery.com/artists/JennyDubnau/images/Self%20Portrait%20as%20Liar.jpg)
Hardy,
You make one profound mistake in your summing up. The stadium was always a soccer facility. The GAA lobbied to have that overturned, conditional on funding, and when the minister said he wouldnt fund it, it reverted to a soccer stadium. To say it was initially offered to the GAA is patently untrue. Your entire argument falls apart on the caveat that was in the GAA being included, subject to funding for the project remaining in place. The minister has consistanly said 2,000 is not viable.
TD arent being excluded. They actually rejected the offer to allow their underage players to use the facility. If they had let it go they actually would have this facility for the youth of the area already. Now they are facing a ruinious multi million legal bill after losing costs last week.
Darbyo, would you allow yachting in the pool? Or would you say sorry, you dont fit?
I thought you might ask about boat related water sports, but this brings us back to the vicious circle of what capacity the ground would be if an adult size GAA pitch was built there. I would accept that TD have'nt shown any documented proof of their architectural report but I think mid Louth posted a link to an O'Donoghue quote that the ground capacity would be 4500.Which seems to me to be the ideal capacity for SR given their average gate. The arguement has gone around in circles at this stage so there seems little point in getting into the 'small print' points again, I (and I suspect most others on this board) would'nt support TD if this was simply a case of trying to destroy SR, would you Dublinfella have a problem with TD and SR sharing if the capacity was acceptable to all concerned?
Quote from: darbyo on April 28, 2007, 11:03:51 PM
I thought you might ask about boat related water sports, but this brings us back to the vicious circle of what capacity the ground would be if an adult size GAA pitch was built there. I would accept that TD have'nt shown any documented proof of their architectural report but I think mid Louth posted a link to an O'Donoghue quote that the ground capacity would be 4500.Which seems to me to be the ideal capacity for SR given their average gate. The arguement has gone around in circles at this stage so there seems little point in getting into the 'small print' points again, I (and I suspect most others on this board) would'nt support TD if this was simply a case of trying to destroy SR, would you Dublinfella have a problem with TD and SR sharing if the capacity was acceptable to all concerned?
Not really but I would still have a problem with that being all the southside gets after years of f**king around from the DCB. They get off the hook about making a balls of Rathcoole.
We really shouldnt be waiting for soccer clubs to get into difficulty and try and muscle in.
Semms like Rovers would rather cold days in hell than have to work with Kennedy after the email and letter to his membership and trying to delay the case. They simply dont trust him and his motives.
Fair enough, I don't live in Dublin so I would'nt be too familiar with the whole situation, in fact most of what I 'know' is from what I've read on this board, though I also check out the soccer sites for a bit of balance. As regards Rathcoole it's my understanding that there are road access problems in relation to this and that it's intended as a center of excellence rather than a southside stadium, so if thats the case then Tallaght is a different situation.However you've argued your position consistently and often effectively IMO but you've also avoided answering some of the questions put to you or tackling some of the issues raised by some of the more knowledgable posters on this issue. Anyway the substantive points have been argued to death at this stage, I would be interested to know what you mean by saying that DCB made 'a balls of Rathcoole'
Quote from: darbyo on April 28, 2007, 11:43:33 PM
Fair enough, I don't live in Dublin so I would'nt be too familiar with the whole situation, in fact most of what I 'know' is from what I've read on this board, though I also check out the soccer sites for a bit of balance. As regards Rathcoole it's my understanding that there are road access problems in relation to this and that it's intended as a center of excellence rather than a southside stadium, so if thats the case then Tallaght is a different situation.However you've argued your position consistently and often effectively IMO but you've also avoided answering some of the questions put to you or tackling some of the issues raised by some of the more knowledgable posters on this issue. Anyway the substantive points have been argued to death at this stage, I would be interested to know what you mean by saying that DCB made 'a balls of Rathcoole'
they got the land for something like £1 an acre
12 years ago.
the SDCC wont put in an access road until there is some form of plan for the site. you dont need an access road to design a stadium or centre of excellence on it. even a few pitches and a portacabin while they make up their minds. its been dragging on too long and suspicions should have been raised when the DCB turned down the ministers offer of a similar funding arrangement for Rathcoole that Rovers were getting in Tallaght.
its unnacceptible to be sitting on this land still and stinks of a property play. ballybodedn st endas got cheap land around the same time and sold it on for appartments.
Find it hard to believe that it's a property play by the DCB, surely in Dublin land is of more importance for games development than money.Are you saying that if DCB put any ol' plan in that an access road would be built by SDCC on the strength of it?. Again I'm not familiar with the Dublin scene but I'm sceptical that Rathcoole has'nt been built simply because of DCB incompetence, if that was the case then more of the Dublin posters would be venting their frustrations right?
Quote from: darbyo on April 28, 2007, 11:03:51 PM
..... that the ground capacity would be 4500. Which seems to me to be the ideal capacity for SR given their average gate.
Nowhere near enough. Shamrock Rovers are sick to the back teeth of GAA people thinking they know how big a stadium Rovers need. Crowds have certainly dwindled over the 20 years without a proper home ground, but why should that rule out the possibility of eventually getting the crowds back up to 8,000 or 9,000 or more?
I'm sure that Thomas Davis would love to keep the capacity as low as possible in order to hinder Rovers success (they have continually stated that it's actually as much about "hearts and minds" as it is about stadium size) but it's hard to know what they want when they REFUSE to show anyone their famous plans which alllegedly only involve minor changes (which is clearly impossible).
Quote from: hoop on April 29, 2007, 07:06:51 AM
Quote from: darbyo on April 28, 2007, 11:03:51 PM
..... that the ground capacity would be 4500. Which seems to me to be the ideal capacity for SR given their average gate.
Nowhere near enough. Shamrock Rovers are sick to the back teeth of GAA people thinking they know how big a stadium Rovers need. Crowds have certainly dwindled over the 20 years without a proper home ground, but why should that rule out the possibility of eventually getting the crowds back up to 8,000 or 9,000 or more?
I'm sure that Thomas Davis would love to keep the capacity as low as possible in order to hinder Rovers success (they have continually stated that it's actually as much about "hearts and minds" as it is about stadium size) but it's hard to know what they want when they REFUSE to show anyone their famous plans which alllegedly only involve minor changes (which is clearly impossible).
So not alone should the SDCC/Government build you a stadium, they should build it to your specifications? Start by paying at least 50% of the cost then you can dictate terms. If the courts and the SDCC decide that this stadium which Rovers are going to pay 1% of the cost of and yet be anchor tenants in is appropriate at 4500 capacity, it's not for ye to complain.
Anyway, it's fair to say ye won't go from having crowds of 1,000 in 2006 to having 9,000 in five years. When ye get full houses at 4500 for a few years on the bounce, ye'll have the wherewithal to go where no Eircom league club has gone before - BUILD A STADIUM AND PAY FOR IT YERESELVES!!
I'd agree with Hoop.
If a stadium of any size is oging to be built the capacity of 4500 does nothing for either the GAA or Rovers. For example, a lot of the Boh rovers pats games would get well over 4500.
If it is going to be built it should be over 4,500.
I see the election has been called. Anyone know how Lenihan wil lget on in the area.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 10:51:32 AM
So not alone should the SDCC/Government build you a stadium, they should build it to your specifications? Start by paying at least 50% of the cost then you can dictate terms. If the courts and the SDCC decide that this stadium which Rovers are going to pay 1% of the cost of and yet be anchor tenants in is appropriate at 4500 capacity, it's not for ye to complain.
So, so, so predictable. I make a valid point in reply to a comment regarding ground capacity - and what happens??? You move the goalposts again.
The reason this thread has gone on so long is because every single time an argument is made in Rovers favour, somebody pipes up claiming that the discussion is actually about something else entirely.
You may stick to your selfish, bigoted, blinkered views if you want - that's your choice. But PLEASE don't claim to be capable of debate.
Quote from: hoop on April 29, 2007, 11:31:57 AM
[I make a valid point in reply to a comment regarding ground capacity - and what happens??? You move the goalposts again.
The reason this thread has gone on so long is because every single time an argument is made in Rovers favour, somebody pipes up claiming that the discussion is actually about something else entirely.
This from the guys who changed the topic of the thread from the Ultras being knackers to the stadium, then when the going got tough brought up a row at a Tyrone club game to bolster their argument!!
Jesus christ!
"You may stick to your selfish, bigoted, blinkered views if you want - that's your choice. But PLEASE don't claim to be capable of debate"
And you claim moral highground regarding debating capability in the very same sentence as throwing 3 seperate insults!
Wonderful irony :-*
Quote from: hoop on April 29, 2007, 11:31:57 AM
You may stick to your selfish, bigoted, blinkered views if you want - that's your choice. But PLEASE don't claim to be capable of debate.
There's that word again. By your definition you're a bigot as well sunshine. Imagine people coming up with a counter arguement to your opinion. bigots the lot of them! hahahahah you really are a muppet.
Anyone come up with a counter point to this fella and he flies off the handel lashing out "bigot" this and "bigot" that, then claims we're incapable of debate. ho ho ho
Quote from: tayto on April 29, 2007, 11:40:57 AM
Imagine people coming up with a counter arguement to your opinion
Oh, it was a counter argument, was it???
Funny that - it looked much more like an ill-informed pointless rant to me, which had damn all to do with capacity requirements (apart from the predictable and baseless view that Rovers crowds will never go up).
Quote from: tayto on April 29, 2007, 11:45:28 AM
Anyone come up with a counter point to this fella and he flies off the handel lashing out "bigot" this and "bigot" that, then claims we're incapable of debate. ho ho ho
I debate
He / she argues
You rant
I'm right
he-she are bigots
you are wrong
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 10:51:32 AM
ye'll have the wherewithal to go where no Eircom league club has gone before - BUILD A STADIUM AND PAY FOR IT YERESELVES!!
thats a ridiculous statement.
scratch the surface and even sensible posters like you ooze snobbery and anti soccer rubbish.
QuoteNowhere near enough. Shamrock Rovers are sick to the back teeth of GAA people thinking they know how big a stadium Rovers need. Crowds have certainly dwindled over the 20 years without a proper home ground, but why should that rule out the possibility of eventually getting the crowds back up to 8,000 or 9,000 or more?
I'm sure that Thomas Davis would love to keep the capacity as low as possible in order to hinder Rovers success (they have continually stated that it's actually as much about "hearts and minds" as it is about stadium size) but it's hard to know what they want when they REFUSE to show anyone their famous plans which alllegedly only involve minor changes (which is clearly impossible).
Hoop debating an issue usually involves numerous different points within the overall debate you seem to think that when you make an arguement only that should be discussed, I think you previously complained when people veered off the 'central point' that the stadium if built to GAA specifications would affect the atmosphere at SR games!.Anyway to keep you happy I'll return to the capacity arguement, and ignoring the fact that the govt. is paying for most of it, why is a stadium of 4500 nowhere near enough?. No LOI club has a greater average crowd than this so that would suggest that most games would easily be accomodated. Why build a stadium of say 10,000 when that will never be full and only the odd game will have a crowd in excess of 4500. You complain that having a capacity of 4500 rules out the possibility of crowds of 8-9000 coming to games in the future but given rovers recent history and the recent example of shels is'nt the possibility of crowds much less than 4500 going to future games just as likely?
Quote from: darbyo on April 29, 2007, 01:54:06 PM
but given rovers recent history and the recent example of shels is'nt the possibility of crowds much less than 4500 going to future games just as likely?
The biggest problem regarding crowds is the fact that the grounds are crap. In fact Tolka Park - our current "home" - is bordering on being a death-trap. Improve the facilities and the crowds will come back. There are LOADS of soccer fans in Ireland. The problem is, most of them just watch it on TV. They compare what they see on telly with the Eircom League grounds they know - and decide not to go.
I'm bemused as to why an argument would be put forward that 4,500 is enough because Rovers never get more at present (factually wrong incidentally - 4,500 is nowhere near enough for an FAI cup semi-final for example). Why do the GAA keep building or expanding grounds without knowing if they'll ever be full? For example, when the re-development of the GAA stadium in Castlebar was being discussed recently, it seemed that nobody seriously believed that it could ever be filled with the new capacity - except maybe for a Bob Dylan concert. I presume that the GAA are just rampant optimists. Fair enough, but then why try to dictate what soccer needs?
Quote from: dublinfella on April 29, 2007, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 10:51:32 AM
ye'll have the wherewithal to go where no Eircom league club has gone before - BUILD A STADIUM AND PAY FOR IT YERESELVES!!
thats a ridiculous statement.
scratch the surface and even sensible posters like you ooze snobbery and anti soccer rubbish.
What the hell?
Look, I'll admit that Hoops remarks about how Rovers shouldn't have to make do with 4500 capacity struck a nerve when put alongside the fact that Rovers are contributing absolutely feck all here (yes, I know, tax defaulting non-wage-paying Rovers made a contribution, and it's not a "zero sum game" whatever the hell that means). However while acknowledging that my response was a bit on the blunt side, why is the idea of a club building their own stadium a "ridiculous statement"???? Plus not liking ungrateful moochers hardly counts as snobbery.
Quote from: hoop on April 29, 2007, 02:42:59 PM
Quote from: darbyo on April 29, 2007, 01:54:06 PM
but given rovers recent history and the recent example of shels is'nt the possibility of crowds much less than 4500 going to future games just as likely?
The biggest problem regarding crowds is the fact that the grounds are crap. In fact Tolka Park - our current "home" - is bordering on being a death-trap. Improve the facilities and the crowds will come back. There are LOADS of soccer fans in Ireland. The problem is, most of them just watch it on TV. They compare what they see on telly with the Eircom League grounds they know - and decide not to go.
I'm bemused as to why an argument would be put forward that 4,500 is enough because Rovers never get more at present (factually wrong incidentally - 4,500 is nowhere near enough for an FAI cup semi-final for example). Why do the GAA keep building or expanding grounds without knowing if they'll ever be full? For example, when the re-development of the GAA stadium in Castlebar was being discussed recently, it seemed that nobody seriously believed that it could ever be filled with the new capacity - except maybe for a Bob Dylan concert. I presume that the GAA are just rampant optimists. Fair enough, but then why try to dictate what soccer needs?
Castlebar might be planning a stadium a bit bigger than they need, but seeing as the most they'll get is 10% grant aid, I'd say they're entitled to build whatever the hell they want, subject to planning permission.
You on the other hand believe that the taxpayer should finance what you perceive to be the potential crowds at Eircom league games. I'm not doubting what you say, I'm merely saying that it's nothing more than conjecture. You say grounds are the reason - perhaps. Maybe hooligans are the reason? Maybe the fact that soccer fans aren't as tuned into local concerns and ergo the pub will always beat live matches. The fact that TV stations weren't exactly beating the doors down to pay big money for the rights to televise Eircom league suggests that could be the case.
You could be right, and maybe Dublin derbies will have 8,000 supporters at them in years to come - I personally would say that when it's taxpayer money at stake, a little more than a guess from a Rovers fan is required before building stadia to house them.
ill say it again
shamrock rovers followers see this idea of the stadium in tallaght as an extension to their dole money
if a gaa club had some of their support as an extreme right wing group called ultras everyone would be saying to shut them down not give them anything they want
I think you'll find most GAA people regard the money spent on expanding GAA grounds as a waste,one 40,000+ stadium is enough for each province but the vast majority of the big stadiums we now have were built and paid for solely by the GAA,before govts. had the money to assist sport development,we own them so we can decide what capacity they'll be. This is a largely govt. funded municiple sports ground therefore none of the clubs using it can dictate entirely what the capacity will be, as long as the capacity is big enough for SR needs (which 4500 is IMO) then all clubs have the choice of accepting the largely free stadium as it is or going away and building their own to whatever specifications they see fit.
By the way crap grounds are'nt the only reason or even the main reason that people stay away from LOI games. Many GAA and rugby grounds are pretty basic, most Irish people are followers rather than fans of soccer, improved facilities won't generate 10,000 crowds up and down the country IMO.
shut down sky tv for a decade and the eircom league might get the crowds they used to enjoy in the 50s, 60s and 70s, soccer fans in ireland are now mostly watching the better product from over the water.
a friend of mine is a pats fan and he's none too happy about rovers getting a "free" stadium either, he must be an anti-soccer bigot as well.
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 03:01:45 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 29, 2007, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 10:51:32 AM
ye'll have the wherewithal to go where no Eircom league club has gone before - BUILD A STADIUM AND PAY FOR IT YERESELVES!!
thats a ridiculous statement.
scratch the surface and even sensible posters like you ooze snobbery and anti soccer rubbish.
What the hell?
Look, I'll admit that Hoops remarks about how Rovers shouldn't have to make do with 4500 capacity struck a nerve when put alongside the fact that Rovers are contributing absolutely feck all here (yes, I know, tax defaulting non-wage-paying Rovers made a contribution, and it's not a "zero sum game" whatever the hell that means). However while acknowledging that my response was a bit on the blunt side, why is the idea of a club building their own stadium a "ridiculous statement"???? Plus not liking ungrateful moochers hardly counts as snobbery.
I was refering to your comment that no Eircom League club has ever built a stadium themselves. A ridicilous thing to say.
You seem to all be forgetting one salient point here, it was the state that approached Rovers with a deal to complete the stadium. All this talk of begging bowls and dole is just factually wrong. Rovers have offered to finish the thing themselves now they are on an even keel again, but the council are adament the kids in the area will get this facility despite TD.
Why would the govt. pay for the stadium if SR are willing to do it?, surely if SR will pay for the completion then they can get the stadium they want, TD can have no gripe and the govt saves money.
Quote from: darbyo on April 29, 2007, 10:22:51 PM
Why would the govt. pay for the stadium if SR are willing to do it?, surely if SR will pay for the completion then they can get the stadium they want, TD can have no gripe and the govt saves money.
because they feel the area needs a decent soccer facility and a high profile anchor tenent. the stadium as designed will return an overall profit for SDCC after a few years.
that and they cannot be seen to let TD win.
Quote from: resdubwhite on April 29, 2007, 11:23:11 AM
I see the election has been called. Anyone know how Lenihan wil lget on in the area.
Lenihan won't get back in. Shinners top the poll up there because the constituency incorporates Tallaght. Hes not even allowed campaign up in Tallaght cos thats Charlie O'Connor's patch. He was relying on the left-over votes from down in Templeogue/parts of Terenure. People down there are hugely embarrassed by his catalogue of gaffes during his previous tenure (kebabs, clowns, etc). Then he went and compounded things by backing O'Donoghue on the Tallaght stadium controversy, whereas Charlie O'Connor kept sensibly quiet. Lenihan has truly shot himself in both feet.
Sean Crowe will get in. Probably Charlie O'Connor. I think its still a 3-seat constituency and theres no way he'll get the 3rd.
oh will you give over.
So the stadium will turn a profit in a "few years" will it. You're so full of it it's frightening. Now is that another exageration or just another downright lie?
So you're not a rovers fan no? Just seem to take their side on any snippet of information and have an unhealthy interest in this development.
I will laugh my arse off when TD get this thing overturned.
I have no sympathy for SR whatsoever on this issue and wouldnt cost me a thought if and when they go the wall. The one thing that stands out clearly in this debate is the desperation by the SR fans. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Looking forward to the outcome.
I wll leave on just one point, a point made by TUG, if TD had a known group associated with it, like the ultras, there would be uprorar.
Give the bastards nothin !!
Tayto be careful, you may be a bigot after that post :D
;D ;D ;D
I've tried butting out of this thread but it's impossible to let some of this guff go unanswered. You've one guy lashing "bigot" and "pathetic" out everytime someone disagrees with him, he even called us "selfish" for wanting into the municipal stadium in tallaght ???
Now this clown is saying the 11 million stadium will be paid for in a few years .... ???
lies lies lies
Thats it. there really is no point.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 29, 2007, 10:09:28 PM
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 03:01:45 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 29, 2007, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 10:51:32 AM
ye'll have the wherewithal to go where no Eircom league club has gone before - BUILD A STADIUM AND PAY FOR IT YERESELVES!!
thats a ridiculous statement.
scratch the surface and even sensible posters like you ooze snobbery and anti soccer rubbish.
What the hell?
Look, I'll admit that Hoops remarks about how Rovers shouldn't have to make do with 4500 capacity struck a nerve when put alongside the fact that Rovers are contributing absolutely feck all here (yes, I know, tax defaulting non-wage-paying Rovers made a contribution, and it's not a "zero sum game" whatever the hell that means). However while acknowledging that my response was a bit on the blunt side, why is the idea of a club building their own stadium a "ridiculous statement"???? Plus not liking ungrateful moochers hardly counts as snobbery.
I was refering to your comment that no Eircom League club has ever built a stadium themselves. A ridicilous thing to say.
You seem to all be forgetting one salient point here, it was the state that approached Rovers with a deal to complete the stadium. All this talk of begging bowls and dole is just factually wrong. Rovers have offered to finish the thing themselves now they are on an even keel again, but the council are adament the kids in the area will get this facility despite TD.
Which club did? I don't know of any is all, but I'm open to correction. Not which club inherited a ground by moving in there after the army vacated it, like Pat's, or a club like Galway that play in a stadium owned by a local district league, or UCD who had facilities built by the government due to being an educational institution, but a club that actually bought land and built a stadium for themselves. Whoever that club is, I'm going to start supporting them.
Incidentally, what were the terms of how Rovers offered to "finish" the stadium? Were ye paying for the land, or was the land to remained owned by the SDCC and leased by Rovers? I don't know this, I'm merely asking.
Quotebut a club that actually bought land and built a stadium for themselves. Whoever that club is, I'm going to start supporting them.
Yooo Hooo, a new supporter for Longford Town. ;) ;)
And Kilkenny City ;D
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 30, 2007, 01:20:48 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 29, 2007, 10:09:28 PM
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 03:01:45 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 29, 2007, 01:36:32 PM
Quote from: Lone Shark on April 29, 2007, 10:51:32 AM
ye'll have the wherewithal to go where no Eircom league club has gone before - BUILD A STADIUM AND PAY FOR IT YERESELVES!!
thats a ridiculous statement.
scratch the surface and even sensible posters like you ooze snobbery and anti soccer rubbish.
What the hell?
Look, I'll admit that Hoops remarks about how Rovers shouldn't have to make do with 4500 capacity struck a nerve when put alongside the fact that Rovers are contributing absolutely feck all here (yes, I know, tax defaulting non-wage-paying Rovers made a contribution, and it's not a "zero sum game" whatever the hell that means). However while acknowledging that my response was a bit on the blunt side, why is the idea of a club building their own stadium a "ridiculous statement"???? Plus not liking ungrateful moochers hardly counts as snobbery.
I was refering to your comment that no Eircom League club has ever built a stadium themselves. A ridicilous thing to say.
You seem to all be forgetting one salient point here, it was the state that approached Rovers with a deal to complete the stadium. All this talk of begging bowls and dole is just factually wrong. Rovers have offered to finish the thing themselves now they are on an even keel again, but the council are adament the kids in the area will get this facility despite TD.
Which club did? I don't know of any is all, but I'm open to correction. Not which club inherited a ground by moving in there after the army vacated it, like Pat's, or a club like Galway that play in a stadium owned by a local district league, or UCD who had facilities built by the government due to being an educational institution, but a club that actually bought land and built a stadium for themselves. Whoever that club is, I'm going to start supporting them.
Incidentally, what were the terms of how Rovers offered to "finish" the stadium? Were ye paying for the land, or was the land to remained owned by the SDCC and leased by Rovers? I don't know this, I'm merely asking.
so why make such a specific point if when pushed you admit you havent a clue?
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on April 30, 2007, 09:55:27 AM
Quote from: resdubwhite on April 29, 2007, 11:23:11 AM
I see the election has been called. Anyone know how Lenihan wil lget on in the area.
Lenihan won't get back in. Shinners top the poll up there because the constituency incorporates Tallaght. Hes not even allowed campaign up in Tallaght cos thats Charlie O'Connor's patch He was relying on the left-over votes from down in Templeogue/parts of Terenure. People down there are hugely embarrassed by his catalogue of gaffes during his previous tenure (kebabs, clowns, etc). Then he went and compounded things by backing O'Donoghue on the Tallaght stadium controversy, whereas Charlie O'Connor kept sensibly quiet. Lenihan has truly shot himself in both feet.
Sean Crowe will get in. Probably Charlie O'Connor. I think its still a 3-seat constituency and theres no way he'll get the 3rd.
this would be the same Charlie O'Connor who has joined the 400 club and is at every Rovers home game and most away ones near Dublin? the same Charlie O'Connor who has done fundraising work for Rovers? If thats sensibly quiet I'm a chinaman.
Every party bar FG has publically supported Rovers stance with FF, SF and Labour all asking TD/the GAA to back off. They clearly are saying this privately too, hence the banning. It entertains me no end to think that the GAA in Tallaght reckon they can swing the constituancy (is it not against the rules of the GAA to even try?). Not one candidate of any hue will be seen to back them and they reckon they can make it the keynote issue in Tallaght? ::) Not crime, the hospital or the national issues like house prices and traffic. Whats the weather like on planet Kennedy?
This is something thats becoming quite apparent in all this and some other issues on the go at the moment. The GAA has precious little political clout in comparison to days of old, hence the genuine confusion from Kennedy as to why he hasnt just been given the stadium because he asked for the GAA.
Is this b*****x still spoutin' shite?
Just to annoy ye GAA lads even further- the South Dublin Council has had to pay the Professionals involved in the original Searrach Rovers attempt at building a Stadium - Quantity Surveyors/Engineers/Architects etc around 250k recently - most of it "arrears"inherited from the people they had to give €1.5m to get their land back even though the ***** hadnt paid any rent on it. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
You just couldnt make it up.
In fairness Dublinfella I don't believe TD think that the 'Tallaght stadium' issue will be the key issue for anybody during the election they were just asking members to bring it to the attention of local politicians that they support their club and politicians that do'nt support the club on this issue may lose the vote of some of the TD members (that's hardly subversive is it?).As for your comment about the GAA having precious little political clout, well that's just nonsensical and irrelevant. You've said that on a few occassions during this circular and long drawn out debate and it adds nothing to your arguement. And I'm not sure I follow your logic as regards the question I asked you earlier, I asked why are the govt. paying for this if SR are willing to pay for it and you said
Quote
because they feel the area needs a decent soccer facility and a high profile anchor tenent. the stadium as designed will return an overall profit for SDCC after a few years.
that and they cannot be seen to let TD win.
Quote
but if SR pay for it then the area still gets a decent soccer facility and a high profile owner, your opinion about making a profit in a
few years is surely only that, an opinion. So the govt. saving face seems to be the only reason that the govt. and by extension the tax payer is oaying for this.
Quote from: darbyo on April 30, 2007, 07:35:50 PM
In fairness Dublinfella I don't believe TD think that the 'Tallaght stadium' issue will be the key issue for anybody during the election they were just asking members to bring it to the attention of local politicians that they support their club and politicians that do'nt support the club on this issue may lose the vote of some of the TD members (that's hardly subversive is it?).As for your comment about the GAA having precious little political clout, well that's just nonsensical and irrelevant. You've said that on a few occassions during this circular and long drawn out debate and it adds nothing to your arguement. And I'm not sure I follow your logic as regards the question I asked you earlier, I asked why are the govt. paying for this if SR are willing to pay for it and you said
Quote
because they feel the area needs a decent soccer facility and a high profile anchor tenent. the stadium as designed will return an overall profit for SDCC after a few years.
that and they cannot be seen to let TD win.Quote
but if SR pay for it then the area still gets a decent soccer facility and a high profile owner, your opinion about making a profit in a
few years is surely only that, an opinion. So the govt. saving face seems to be the only reason that the govt. and by extension the tax payer is oaying for this.
I dont know enough of the ins and outs from the Rovers end, all i know is the stadium at 10,000 is expected to turn a profit from a combination of a cut of Rovers revenues and rental, and have paid for itself within around 15 years. I heard they offered to scratch the deal and pay their way but the SDCC said no. The minutae of the deal Im not privy to.
Profoundly the reason the political classes have dug their heels in is the pandoras box TD will open if a competetor gets an input into the funding of other sports. And banning a senior politician is just an red rag to them all.
Im not saying its subversive, Im saying its against the apolitical (party political at least) rules of the organisation to 'target' certain politicians and ask the Taoiseach to remove the Minister for Sport.
It's not nonsensical or irrelevent to look at how the GAA's clout has wained in this context. They are the ones abusing ministers and banning others from their clubhouse. Too late to unring the political bell now it hasnt gone the GAA's way.... 20 years ago would a Kerry FF Minister and SF be backing a LoI club over a GAA club regardless of context? Kennedy just hasnt got the political nous to realise he hasnt got the cover he needs or the skills needed to effectivly lobby those who can give it to him. He is causing the GAA in South Dublin damage it will take years to repair. A number of clubs in the area have had PP delayed, pitches witrdrawn, funds witheld. All because the DCB incorrectly assumed that they were untouchable. Whoops.
quote][/quote]Rovers have offered to finish the thing themselves now they are on an even keel again
Quote
then said,
Quote
I heard they offered to scratch the deal and pay their way but the SDCC said no. The minutae of the deal Im not privy to.
Quote
I was genuinly interested to hear the details of SR offer but it seems that it's kind of 'heard it on the grapevine' stuff, so you should'nt really be bringing this into the discussion, especially when you chastised LoneShark for doing something similar only a few posts back(i.e making claims you can't substantiate). I would disagree with you as regards the GAA's political influence, it is still extremely strong IMO in the country in general but possibly not so strong in Dublin but again I would say that has always been the case. However it is an irrelevant point as it's a matter of opinion, not fact, one political reverse in an area which would'nt be a GAA stronghold is hardly evidence of a decline in GAA political influence, especially when the next leader of the country will be a Dublin GAA fanatic or the son of a Mayo footballer.
Quote from: darbyo on April 30, 2007, 08:36:28 PM
quote]
Rovers have offered to finish the thing themselves now they are on an even keel again
Quote
then said,
Quote
I heard they offered to scratch the deal and pay their way but the SDCC said no. The minutae of the deal Im not privy to.
Quote
I was genuinly interested to hear the details of SR offer but it seems that it's kind of 'heard it on the grapevine' stuff, so you should'nt really be bringing this into the discussion, especially when you chastised LoneShark for doing something similar only a few posts back(i.e making claims you can't substantiate). I would disagree with you as regards the GAA's political influence, it is still extremely strong IMO in the country in general but possibly not so strong in Dublin but again I would say that has always been the case. However it is an irrelevant point as it's a matter of opinion, not fact, one political reverse in an area which would'nt be a GAA stronghold is hardly evidence of a decline in GAA political influence, especially when the next leader of the country will be a Dublin GAA fanatic or the son of a Mayo footballer.
[/quote]
the current leader of the country is a Dublin GAA fan, and he is on the record as supporting Rovers. we could play this all day. Kennedy dipped his toe in the political water and realised it was cold, rather than either withdraw from the battle or lobby effectivley he put it up to the political classes like the autocratic bully he is renowned to be. spectacular own goal and to say this is a 'reverse' doesnt do the situation round here in terms of planning permission, grants and continued use of council pitches justice. very telling that the biggest of the original 6 clubs has withdrawn support for the case.
the fact that Rovers offered to finish the stadium themselves seems to be fairly well established, what i dont know is was it to go back to the original deal or buy the land and what level of communality would be involved. the only reason I saw it is in response to the tedious line that they are freeloading when its actually the state who are the driving force here.
We can agree to disagree about the political clout of the GAA and leave it at that. But again you can't sustantiate your claim about SR offering to pay for the whole job. I was listening to a representitive of SR 2/3 weeks back on the radio and he never mentioned this nor did SR in their recent statements on the topic. If they need to get into the ground and have the money to pay for it why have'nt they come out and said so and why do you support an organization that can pay for this but won't. I can understand why they would want the govt. to pay for it but I can't understand you or anyone not directly involved in SR supporting a situation where they have the ability to contribute significantly but don't and the country has to fit the bill.
Quote from: darbyo on April 30, 2007, 09:20:42 PM
topic. If they need to get into the ground and have the money to pay for it why have'nt they come out and said so and why do you support an organization that can pay for this but won't. I can understand why they would want the govt. to pay for it but I can't understand you or anyone not directly involved in SR supporting a situation where they have the ability to contribute significantly but don't and the country has to fit the bill.
How about they use the €1.5m the Council paid them to stop squatting on the Council's land >:(
QuoteA number of clubs in the area have had PP delayed
So let me get this straight - a number of GAA clubs in Dublin have had their planning permissions delayed because of Thomas Davis ??
This is just complete bolloux and you know it. Back up you point with details or else just shut up.
Quote from: dublinfella on April 30, 2007, 07:11:51 PM
this would be the same Charlie O'Connor who has joined the 400 club and is at every Rovers home game and most away ones near Dublin? the same Charlie O'Connor who has done fundraising work for Rovers? If thats sensibly quiet I'm a chinaman.
;D
thank you.
Though I'm sure he won't thank you for outing him.
By the by, I was up at Thomas Davis last night. Fine setup they have up there. Tallaght stadium will complement it just nicely.
Quote from: blast05 on May 01, 2007, 01:04:21 AM
QuoteA number of clubs in the area have had PP delayed
So let me get this straight - a number of GAA clubs in Dublin have had their planning permissions delayed because of Thomas Davis ??
This is just complete bolloux and you know it. Back up you point with details or else just shut up.
Lucan Sarsfields for one.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 02, 2007, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: blast05 on May 01, 2007, 01:04:21 AM
QuoteA number of clubs in the area have had PP delayed
So let me get this straight - a number of GAA clubs in Dublin have had their planning permissions delayed because of Thomas Davis ??
This is just complete bolloux and you know it. Back up you point with details or else just shut up.
Lucan Sarsfields for one.
Caught out again Searrachfella --- check press releases on the South Dublin Council's website - no special hold ups -just normal
Quote from: Rossfan on May 02, 2007, 09:27:23 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on May 02, 2007, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: blast05 on May 01, 2007, 01:04:21 AM
QuoteA number of clubs in the area have had PP delayed
So let me get this straight - a number of GAA clubs in Dublin have had their planning permissions delayed because of Thomas Davis ??
This is just complete bolloux and you know it. Back up you point with details or else just shut up.
Lucan Sarsfields for one.
Caught out again Searrachfella --- check press releases on the South Dublin Council's website - no special hold ups -just normal
two national newspapers and whats happening on the ground say otherwise.
did you honestly expect that you could sue the dept of sport and SDCC and they would hand over cheques like nothing was wrong?
Quote from: dublinfella on May 03, 2007, 01:32:32 AM
two national newspapers and whats happening on the ground say otherwise.
did you honestly expect that you could sue the dept of sport and SDCC and they would hand over cheques like nothing was wrong?
Which National Newspapers, specifically - have you got a link, and what's all this about "what's happening on the ground?" , what has that got to do with anything, what does that prove?
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on May 01, 2007, 10:16:01 AM
Quote from: dublinfella on April 30, 2007, 07:11:51 PM
this would be the same Charlie O'Connor who has joined the 400 club and is at every Rovers home game and most away ones near Dublin? the same Charlie O'Connor who has done fundraising work for Rovers? If thats sensibly quiet I'm a chinaman.
;D
thank you.
Though I'm sure he won't thank you for outing him.
ok, so no one picked up on this so let me spell it out.
- Dublin county council anncounces plan to take on the cost and the responsibility to develop Tallaght stadium to serve as a 'municipal' facility that will serve the community, and the many sports the community offers.
- Fianna Fail's minister for sport, Mr.O'Donoghue does a George Bush veto on that idea and says he'll pull funding unless the stadium is soccer-only and that Shamrock Rovers are anchor tenants.
- Another Fianna Fail TD, Charlie O'Connor, it turns out, is a member of the so-called 400 club in Shamrock Rovers, which have essentially taken over the running of the club.
Anyone see what I'm getting at? Do the words 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' spring to anyone else's mind?
Bottle, of course you have to spell it out, otherwise he'd put the usual spin on it, or, as with anything fishy, he'll just ignore it.
typical FF sort of stuff. They've been at this shite for years.
Quote from: tayto on May 03, 2007, 10:03:12 AM
typical FF sort of stuff. They've been at this shite for years.
Yeah, terrible aren't they??? No doubt countless GAA clubs - Thomas Davis included - are queuing up to hand back the copious funding they received under Fianna Fail as a sign of protest.
Quote from: hoop on May 03, 2007, 10:22:07 AM
Quote from: tayto on May 03, 2007, 10:03:12 AM
typical FF sort of stuff. They've been at this shite for years.
Yeah, terrible aren't they??? No doubt countless GAA clubs - Thomas Davis included - are queuing up to hand back the copious funding they received under Fianna Fail as a sign of protest.
whats your point? Are you suggesting that a member of Thomas Davis' who is also a member of Fianna Fail was responsible for them getting grants they shouldn't have?
what funding are you on about?
please clarify.
Poor aul'hoop seems to have trouble understanding the difference between legit funding that's open to any sports club and something very dodgey going on. even after it's been spelled out. dear oh dear.
It's hardly a surprise he thinks we're being "selfish". Go on son, call us "pathetic" again, how about "bigots"?
Jesus Hoop, proof of conflict of interest is presented to you and rather than comment on that you suggest TD got dodgy funding without any proof.
Christ that showed us!!!
Your argument has turned into farce, its hilarious!!!
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 10:38:34 AM
proof of conflict of interest is presented to you and rather than comment on that you suggest TD got dodgy funding without any proof.
Where exactly do I say anything about dodgy funding for Thomas Davis???
Do you just make this up as you go along???
I was - of course - merely referring to the fact that the knives are out for Fianna Fail - including O'Donoghue - DESPITE the fact that so many GAA clubs have done so well out of them.
The GAA wants everything - and when it doesn't get it, the rattles get thrown around.
I note also that the GAA wanted O'Donoghue to fund GAA players grants directly - so that the GAA wouldn't have to dirty their hands with the money and could carry on pretending to be amateur. Farce.
Regarding "conflict of interest" - what if GAA head and Fine Gael TD Jimmy Deenihan were to replace O'Donoghue and overturn his decision on Tallaght Stadium? That wouldn't be conflict of interest - no? Or would it be okay as long as the GAA get their way???
Arent you the guy who accused us of going off topic when proved wrong ?
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I'm sure you can back up the "pretending to be amateur" comment by providing proof of players being paid to play?
Quote from: hoop on May 03, 2007, 11:10:18 AM
Regarding "conflict of interest" - what if GAA head and Fine Gael TD Jimmy Deenihan were to replace O'Donoghue and overturn his decision on Tallaght Stadium? That wouldn't be conflict of interest - no? Or would it be okay as long as the GAA get their way???
Hypothetical question, come back if Deenihan gets the job and ask again, otherwise stop clutching at straws that dont exist ;D
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 11:12:37 AM
Arent you the guy who accused us of going off topic when proved wrong ?
So where did I go off topic? You mean by not saying anything about Charlie O'Connor?
What about Pat Rabbitte - who has generously supported Rovers fund-raising events. Is that another "conflict of interest"?
What about the TDs and councillors all over the country who are members of GAA clubs? Should they all resign membership just in case a "conflict of interest" arises regarding funding or planning???
No - didn't think so. You need them, don't you?
Quote from: hoop on May 03, 2007, 12:03:37 PM
What about the TDs and councillors all over the country who are members of GAA clubs? Should they all resign membership just in case a "conflict of interest" arises regarding funding or planning???
No - didn't think so. You need them, don't you?
They need the GAA more than the GAA need them :)
Haven't you read between the lines in the Constitution of the State re the special position of the GAA?
We are like the Army in Turkey only more subtle.
Dail Eireann and local politicians had better behave themselves.
Quote from: hoop on May 03, 2007, 12:03:37 PM
What about Pat Rabbitte - who has generously supported Rovers fund-raising events. Is that another "conflict of interest"?
Pat Rabbitte is Labour, so no.
Quote
What about the TDs and councillors all over the country who are members of GAA clubs? Should they all resign membership just in case a "conflict of interest" arises regarding funding or planning???
Which do you think came first?
Keep it up Hoop, closing in on 50 pages of pure shite!
I'll call the Guinness book of records and have them on standby :D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 01:50:33 PM
I'll call the Guinness book of records and have them on standby
Totally off topic. Truth hurts again.
Hoop its page 49, the topic has been discussed to death ::)
The topic by the way is shamrock rovers ultras, lest I be accused of being the only one to stray!
Jesus you are some hypocrit to talk about going off topic :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
So will you be at Parnell on friday to see all the TD fans and their "Rovers f**k off and die" banners?
Or will you burst into flames on entering?
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 02:02:29 PM
Hoop its page 49, the topic has been discussed to death ::)
The topic by the way is shamrock rovers ultras, lest I be accused of being the only one to stray!
Funny - just a few posts ago, you were getting worked up about a so-called "conflict of interests".
But when the topic of the GAA controlling so many local councils is raised, you suddenly decide that the thread is way past it's sell-by date.
Well done.
Quote from: hoop on May 03, 2007, 02:07:10 PM
But when the topic of the GAA controlling so many local councils is raised, you suddenly decide that the thread is way past it's sell-by date.
Well done.
No I chose to not reply as its pure and utter shite and not worthy of a response.
Go on just a few more posts, if only Roy Castle were around to see it :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Its a little known fact that he didnt really die of cancer, its all a cover up, Thomas Davis killed him!
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 03, 2007, 02:11:01 PM
No I chose to not reply as its pure and utter shite and not worthy of a response.
Pathetic.
:-*
the point I was making re O'Connor was that like all politicians in Tallaght they are firmly nailing their colours to the Rovers mast. These guys are professional politicians. They know the way the wind is blowing, and more importantly that Kennedy in TD doesnt. Further evidence he is a marginalised figure in the local area if it were needed.
out of interest bottle thrower, where does your pro GAA/anti-Rovers vote go when the candidates are uniform in their opinion?
article in todays star in which Kennedy's bluff is called. lets see the plans!! intersting after 2 years of 'its nothing to do with Rovers' now its 'lets talk'.
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/300/star030507il6.jpg)
In last weeks Tallaght echo O'Donnell from TD repeated the line that it was the minister causing the delay. This week they ran a letter from the assistant county manager.
Thomas Davis court challenge "holding up" opening of stadium
Dear Sir,
I refer to the letter of Christopher O'Donnell, Chairman, Thomas Davis club (The Echo letters page, april 25th) in which he calls for the completion of the stadium in Tallaght, and expresses the clubs fervent wish to see the youth of Tallaght playing and watching games in it.
This stadium would be completed and available to the youth of Tallaght now were it not for the action of Thomas Davis club by it's challenge in the courts.
Yours Sincerely,
Tom Doherty,
Deputy Manager,
South Dublin County Council.
I'm voting Green in this election.
You still don't get it Dublinfella. We don't need them. They need us. It might sound arrogant, but its true.
I know you went to the trouble of scanning in that article and all, but if you expect anyone here to read something that was printed in the Star, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken.
As for the letter. I don't know its author from Adam. But he is right, the stadium would likely be available were it not for the intervention of TD. But only avaliable to a fraction of the community. We have Thomas Davis to thank for ensuring that it will be either made available to the entire community, or else some serious questions will have to be answered before the powers that be can justify carrying out Minister O'Donogue's short sighted plan.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on May 03, 2007, 09:55:59 PM
I'm voting Green in this election.
me too. good man. must be the only party not to explicitly support Rovers.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on May 03, 2007, 09:55:59 PMYou still don't get it Dublinfella. We don't need them. They need us. It might sound arrogant, but its true.
they clearly feel they dont though
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on May 03, 2007, 09:55:59 PMI know you went to the trouble of scanning in that article and all, but if you expect anyone here to read something that was printed in the Star, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken.
it was the graphic that I thought was relevent. proof that a gaa pitch cant fit in the site, never mind the stadium.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on May 03, 2007, 09:55:59 PMAs for the letter. I don't know its author from Adam. But he is right, the stadium would likely be available were it not for the intervention of TD. But only avaliable to a fraction of the community. We have Thomas Davis to thank for ensuring that it will be either made available to the entire community, or else some serious questions will have to be answered before the powers that be can justify carrying out Minister O'Donogue's short sighted plan.
so TD have dont the community a favour by ensuring no-one gets to use it for 7 more years. ::)
my previous post destroys two lies put forward by TD. 1: that there would be do reduction in capacity and 2: the council want them involved.
Quoteit was the graphic that I thought was relevent. proof that a gaa pitch cant fit in the site, never mind the stadium.
I think you shoudl look at the graphic again as a GAA pitch will clearly fit. Ìf we for a moment allow that the graphic is accurate then all it shows is that the modified development (pitch and stand) encroaches by all of about 1 metre into the school lands .... i'd say that would be a deal breaker alright ::)
As for the letter from the assistant county manager, i find it hard to believe that he would such a letter given that a judicial review has been ordered. If Doherty feels so strongly about it then why doesn't he challenge the need for a review to a higher court.
I think its about time people had a read of this: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/c4e4f139cf1efc32802572c8004adaff?OpenDocument (http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/c4e4f139cf1efc32802572c8004adaff?OpenDocument)
A lot of interesting stuff. I never realised that TD originally owned the site of the proposed development and gave it up to the council (got other pitches as replacements) on the understanding that the area would be developed as a leisure park for the entire community.
Cheers for that, blast05. God help me for saying this, but I found it fascinating
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/09/300px-My_Kingdom.jpg)
Quote from: blast05 on May 03, 2007, 10:35:00 PM
As for the letter from the assistant county manager, i find it hard to believe that he would such a letter given that a judicial review has been ordered. If Doherty feels so strongly about it then why doesn't he challenge the need for a review to a higher court.
he is ffs. TD are suing SDCC.
Quote from: blast05 on May 03, 2007, 10:35:00 PM
I think its about time people had a read of this: http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/c4e4f139cf1efc32802572c8004adaff?OpenDocument (http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/c4e4f139cf1efc32802572c8004adaff?OpenDocument)
A lot of interesting stuff. I never realised that TD originally owned the site of the proposed development and gave it up to the council (got other pitches as replacements) on the understanding that the area would be developed as a leisure park for the entire community.
like the bit at the end where he says he knows that the stadium will never house the GAA....
Quotehe is ffs. TD are suing SDCC.
Ok, maybe i missed something here but i didn't realise SDCC were challenging the need for a judicial review to the supreme court.
I stand corrected if that is the case
Also, will you copy and paste the piece here where he says he knows the GAA will never be housed in the stadium. I couldn't face reading it all again
From the The high court Judicial Review
"Construction works ceased on the site in November 2001 and there has been no work done since. The building contractor is still in possession of the site. In July 2003 Shamrock Rovers applied for and was granted an extension of the planning permission for a period of one year to 31st October 2004, to enable them to complete the stadium. No work was carried out during that twelve month period. In October 2004 Shamrock Rovers applied for a further extension for a period of one and a half years to complete the stadium. On 14th December 2002, the respondents as planning authority refused that application."
What a lazy shower of club members. They wouldn't even know how to lay a brick.
Yet they would have us believe the stadium would be built quick smart only for TD :D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: hoop on April 23, 2007, 03:41:28 PM
Quote from: tayto on April 23, 2007, 03:26:24 PM
He is claiming that the crowd would have to be 30m from either end in order to fit a GAA pitch. This simply isn't the case according to the regulation pitch dimensions above.
The planned soccer pitch is 100 metres in length.
Thomas Davis want the playing surface extended to 160 metres.
Fact.
"That the manager's report be adopted subject to the playing pitch being increased to 140 by 85 metres and to appropriate modifications to increase the changing room accommodation. The stands to be extended either in the current phase or in a future phase in line with the increased length of the playing surface and adequate car parking provided on site and if necessary in the area previously approved by An Bórd Pleanala for stadium car parking referred to as Site B on Whitestown Way."
So the original decision was to extend it to 140 metres. Fact. Not the 160 metres you're claiming.
Quote from: tayto on May 04, 2007, 11:55:11 AM
So the original decision was to extend it to 140 metres. Fact. Not the 160 metres you're claiming.
160 metres is correct when the ten metres run-off at either end is included. That's the figure given by Thomas Davis to the SDCC.
You claimed the playing surface to be 160 metres not the playing surface + run off area, plus 20m seems a bit excessive for a run off are, surely 10-15 is more than adequate
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on May 04, 2007, 02:10:08 PM
You claimed the playing surface to be 160 metres not the playing surface + run off area, plus 20m seems a bit excessive for a run off are, surely 10-15 is more than adequate
10 metres at either end is what Thomas Davis said.
Regardless of whether you define it as playing surface or run-off - it still leaves soccer fans 30 metres away from the pitch when standing behind the goals.
"it still leaves soccer fans 30 metres away from the pitch when standing behind the goals"
Boo f**king hoo, its not like its the only stadium in the world with this gap between pitch and fans.
This has already been discussed before about 30000 posts ago anyway and proven as a non factor.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 02:47:03 PM
This has already been discussed before about 30000 posts ago anyway and proven as a non factor.
Proven??? Because you say so???
Is there some secret law somewhere that states that soccer fans interests and opinions don't count?
When I go to a soccer match, I've no desire to be told by the likes of you that being 30 metres away from the pitch is just fine.
Quote from: hoop on May 04, 2007, 02:52:05 PM
Proven??? Because you say so???
Is there some secret law somewhere that states that soccer fans interests and opinions don't count?
When I go to a soccer match, I've no desire to be told by the likes of you that being 30 metres away from the pitch is just fine.
No not proven because I say so.
That point was widely proven as a non issue, and if it were the only issue you would be laughed out of court.
Tell me this, do you always sit in the front row at soccer games?
Never been half way up the stand or at the back?
Dont tell me you have never been more than 30 metres from the pitch :D :D :D :D :D :D
Jesus god forbid the soccer crowd every get their shit together and build a ground like Croke park, 30 metres my arse, god love yis ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 03:04:59 PM
Dont tell me you have never been more than 30 metres from the pitch
So if you're 30 metres away at the front of the stand - how far away are you at the back???
And don't forget - we're talking a SMALL stadium here - and not Croke Park, where mathematics dictate that huge capacity equals greater distances.
Thankfully, judicial reviews deal with facts and circumstances pertinent to all parties - and are most unlikely to take your point of view which could easily be shortened to one sentence: "Let's just fire a full-size GAA pitch in - and to hell with everyone else."
Quote from: hoop on May 04, 2007, 03:14:11 PM
Thankfully, judicial reviews deal with facts and circumstances pertinent to all parties
And the facts in the judicial review are a 140m pitch not 160m (it mentions nothing about run off) as you have stated.
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on May 04, 2007, 03:21:24 PM
And the facts in the judicial review are a 140m pitch not 160m (it mentions nothing about run off) as you have stated.
Thomas Davis want a 10 metre run-off at either end - which makes the length of the field 160 metres.
Call it whatever you want - it's all the same to me. And I'm sure to the Judicial Review too.
Quote from: hoop on May 04, 2007, 03:14:11 PM
So if you're 30 metres away at the front of the stand - how far away are you at the back???
And don't forget - we're talking a SMALL stadium here -
You answered that question yourself in the next sentence, not very far at all ! :D :D :D :D :D :D
FFS man, look at the photo you scanned and posted - the only way a GAA pitch can be accomodated is by extending the playing area to the right as per the yellow outline of the GAA pitch. The position of the soccer pitch does not have to change. This means that 3 sides of the ground can be completely developed to whatever size is required for catering for whatever size crowd SR would attract - and all the crowds behind the goal would be right up to the pitch.
And don't be dumb enough to come back here complaining about not having all 4 sides of the ground developed.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 03:36:02 PM
You answered that question yourself in the next sentence, not very far at all !
Your usual ludicrous answer.
When building a stadium with a capacity of 10,000 - and with a particular anchor tenant sport in mind - you build the stadium to best suit that sport.
Yet you think that the spectators being miles away from the pitch in the Maracana, is argument enough for the spectators to be sitting miles away in a much smaller compact stadium.
Waffle.
Quote from: blast05 on May 04, 2007, 03:48:11 PM
And don't be dumb enough to come back here complaining about not having all 4 sides of the ground developed.
How thick and arrogant can you get???
You think you can win an argument by deciding that a central issue - namely that the stadium would be botched, lop-sided and half built - can simply be ignored???
Are you for real???
Quote from: hoop on May 04, 2007, 03:53:00 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 03:36:02 PM
You answered that question yourself in the next sentence, not very far at all !
Your usual ludicrous answer.
When building a stadium with a capacity of 10,000 - and with a particular anchor tenant sport in mind - you build the stadium to best suit that sport.
Waffle.
Ludicrous? I dont think so, its very straight forward, but another case of, as Evil Genius would say, attack the poster not the post.
Regarding building the stadium to suit the anchor tennant, you are going round and round in circles here.
You would prefer to be right against the pitch, but 30m isnt that bad, its a case of beggars cant be choosers. When you can afford to build it yourself, do what you want with it!!
"Yet you think that the spectators being miles away from the pitch in the Maracana, is argument enough for the spectators to be sitting miles away in a much smaller compact stadium"
When did I ever mention the Maracana????
Dont tell me what I think when you are clearly making it up.
And by the way, 30m is NOT miles.
f**king idiot.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 04:36:40 PM
When did I ever mention the Maracana???
Dont tell me what I think when you are clearly making it up.
Just an example of one of the many large stadiums you seem to think would justify butchering the stadium.
("Boo f**king hoo, its not like its the only stadium in the world with this gap between pitch and fans")
Carry on with your infantile hair-spliting - you thick, bigoted gobshite.
Quote from: hoop on May 04, 2007, 04:53:00 PM
you thick, bigoted gobshite.
for argueing that a 30m gap aint that bad.
Well pardon my bigotry ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 04, 2007, 05:04:33 PM
for argueing that a 30m gap aint that bad.
Well pardon my bigotry
You haven't ARGUED anything.
You have merely stated whatever crap best suits your blinkered views best.
And councils are in the business of building things that make sense - and not things that allegedly "ain't that bad".
Quote from: hoop on May 04, 2007, 05:08:47 PM
You haven't ARGUED anything.
You have merely stated whatever crap best suits your blinkered views best.
Hoop the same might be said of you.
you are reeking of desperation now, let it go, enjoy a few pints, tis the long weekend.
Guuuuuuskaaaaabbaaa!!!
QuoteHow thick and arrogant can you get???
You don't find this comment somewhat ironic given the "my way or the highway" approach you have adopted to all posts despite 90% of what you are saying being shot down ???
Quoteust an example of one of the many large stadiums you seem to think would justify butchering the stadium
If this would result in a butchered stadium then a butchered stadium is exactly what the RSJ ground of Waterford United and the Brandywell of Derry City are .......... and the Stadio Olympic of Roma/Parma in Serie A, the Stadio Del Alpe of Juventus, etc. etc. ............... but sure they're only Mickey Mouse clubs in comparison to Shamrock Rovers ::)
QuoteAnd councils are in the business of building things that make sense - and not things that allegedly "ain't that bad".
So why did they agree to build a GAA pitch in Nov 2005 after Shamrock Rovers spent 4 years scratching their arse doing nothing. Remember it was the council who agreed with TD to build a community facility for all when TD gave up the lands on which the proposed development is to take place
Quote from: hoop on May 04, 2007, 05:08:47 PM
And councils are in the business of building things that make sense - and not things that allegedly "ain't that bad".
It aint that bad for the soccer, but does make sense.
They have to fit a full size GAA pitch there remember :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: blast05 on May 04, 2007, 05:20:52 PMIf this would result in a butchered stadium then a butchered stadium is exactly what the RSJ ground of Waterford United and the Brandywell of Derry City are
Sorry to butt in again but has the Brandywell really got a 160m pitch? I've never been but it doesn't look anything like that size, on TV.
QuoteSorry to butt in again but has the Brandywell really got a 160m pitch? I've never been but it doesn't look anything like that size, on TV.
I don't know. I haven't been there to measure it with my ruler, but from TV pictures, there is a big distance behind each goal
Stadio Olympico.... good enough for 2 Serie A clubs, good enough to host a World Cup Final, but not good enough for Shamrock Rovers.
Next point.
Blast, the Stadio Olimpico in Rome is an athletics stadium. It also houses soccer because they can fit a pitch in the middle without any impact on the athletics track.
If you cant see the difference between that setup and wanting Tallaght gutted to accommodate senior GAA.....
QuoteBlast, the Stadio Olimpico in Rome is an athletics stadium. It also houses soccer because they can fit a pitch in the middle without any impact on the athletics track.
::) :D :D ::)
So you accept my point or not that what is good enough to host the World Cup Final and 2 Serie A teams as anchor tenants and 3 Europeans cup finals (and again in 2009) is not good enough to host Shamrock Rovers versus any other Eircom League team ???????
Quote from: blast05 on May 06, 2007, 12:13:56 PM
QuoteBlast, the Stadio Olimpico in Rome is an athletics stadium. It also houses soccer because they can fit a pitch in the middle without any impact on the athletics track.
::) :D :D ::)
So you accept my point or not that what is good enough to host the World Cup Final and 2 Serie A teams as anchor tenants and 3 Europeans cup finals (and again in 2009) is not good enough to host Shamrock Rovers versus any other Eircom League team ???????
do you accept my point that its a venue for one sport housing another that no-one decided to sue to get included?
Quote from: blast05 on May 06, 2007, 12:13:56 PM
So you accept my point or not that what is good enough to host the World Cup Final and 2 Serie A teams as anchor tenants and 3 Europeans cup finals (and again in 2009) is not good enough to host Shamrock Rovers versus any other Eircom League team ?
If you were to set out to build a stadium primarily suited to soccer, you certainly wouldn't build the Stadio Olympico. It was built for athletics - but is used for soccer. Very far from ideal. No surprise that when stadiums were being built, re-built or renovated for the World Cup in Germany, most ended up with no athletics track.
The SDCC have set out to build a stadium primarily suited to soccer - which can then also be used by whatever other sports can be accomodated. That is their right. Yet Thomas Davis want to bulldoze that decision although they don't appear to have any real need for the stadium - apart from the vague plan that Dublin might play the occasional game there. Very flimsy grounds for destroying a logical plan and creating a botched, lop-sided stadium.
It is beyond doubt that Thomas Davis winning, would mean soccer losing. There is simply no logical and satisfactory way of accommodating a full size GAA pitch and a soccer pitch. Thomas Davis know full well that their plans are totally to the detriment of soccer - as do most of the posters here. If Thomas Davis wins - then blinkered arrogance wins - and not logic or fairness.
Seriously folks why is this thread still here.
Or at the very least it should be renamed the Glorious Thomas Davis defending Justice against the forces of Facism & JOD Thread.
Quotedo you accept my point that its a venue for one sport housing another that no-one decided to sue to get included?
Its a municipal sports stadium for which the vast majority of usage comes from the anchor tenants, 2 soccer teams - say approx 50-60 major soccer matches per year and 1 major athletic event (Golden League). The original usage was for the Olympic games but it was completely revamped and reshaped and roofed
for the soccer World cup in 1990 to the extent that only 1 stand remains in its original position. The other stands were brought up to 9m closer to the playing area.
So would this stadium, which has been revamped to suit its primary tenants, 2 soccer teams, and which has bigger distances behind the goals to the stands and from the sidelines to the stands than what would be the case in the proposed development we are concened about, be good enough for Shamrock Rovers ???
P.S.: i don't recall anyone suing anybody, unless thats the new lingo for seeking a juidicial review.
QuoteThe SDCC have set out to build a stadium primarily suited to soccer - which can then also be used by whatever other sports can be accomodated. That is their right. Yet Thomas Davis want to bulldoze that decision although they don't appear to have any real need for the stadium - apart from the vague plan that Dublin might play the occasional game there. Very flimsy grounds for destroying a logical plan and creating a botched, lop-sided stadium.
It is beyond doubt that Thomas Davis winning, would mean soccer losing. There is simply no logical and satisfactory way of accommodating a full size GAA pitch and a soccer pitch. Thomas Davis know full well that their plans are totally to the detriment of soccer - as do most of the posters here. If Thomas Davis wins - then blinkered arrogance wins - and not logic or fairness.
Did you actually bother reading the link i posted to the judicial review ::)
Oh, and i am still waiting to be shown the text from the judicial review where the judge said that the ground will never house the GAA
Quote from: blast05 on May 06, 2007, 02:04:58 PM
Quotedo you accept my point that its a venue for one sport housing another that no-one decided to sue to get included?
Its a municipal sports stadium for which the vast majority of usage comes from the anchor tenants, 2 soccer teams - say approx 50-60 major soccer matches per year and 1 major athletic event (Golden League). The original usage was for the Olympic games but it was completely revamped and reshaped and roofed for the soccer World cup in 1990 to the extent that only 1 stand remains in its original position. The other stands were brought up to 9m closer to the playing area.
So would this stadium, which has been revamped to suit its primary tenants, 2 soccer teams, and which has bigger distances behind the goals to the stands and from the sidelines to the stands than what would be the case in the proposed development we are concened about, be good enough for Shamrock Rovers ???
P.S.: i don't recall anyone suing anybody, unless thats the new lingo for seeking a juidicial review.
but its still an athletics stadium. whats your point?
if gaelic games could be included they would be. they cant so they wont.
Quote from: blast05 on May 06, 2007, 02:09:52 PM
Oh, and i am still waiting to be shown the text from the judicial review where the judge said that the ground will never house the GAA
As mentioned earlier the respondent and the notice party contended that the applicant had neither a substantial interest nor had it demonstrated substantial grounds for having the decision quashed because the withdrawal of funding by the Minister for the modified development meant that development as modified by the resolution of the 12th December, 2005 could not go ahead and hence there was no benefit to the applicant from the quashing of the resolution of the 13th February, 2006.
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Barron's submission, to the effect that the absence or otherwise of funding is a matter which would go towards the exercise of the courts discretion to grant refief by way of judicial review in circumstances where the court having heard the judicial review application was of the view that the relief claimed was otherwise merited.
That being so this not a factor which would warrant the refusal of leave.
I have read many, though obviously not all, of the replies to this thread and i ca'nt recall a supporter of any other LOI club writing to support Rovers position. Is that not significant?.
Quote from: Onlooker on May 06, 2007, 04:23:57 PM
I have read many, though obviously not all, of the replies to this thread and i ca'nt recall a supporter of any other LOI club writing to support Rovers position. Is that not significant?
On a GAA forum???
No.
They express their support elsewhere - and it's almost universal.
Quote from: hoop on May 06, 2007, 04:26:58 PM
They express their support elsewhere - and it's almost universal.
;D
A delusional Freudian slip maybe?
How about, widespread support within the nest of EL supporters.
Quote from: Main Street on May 06, 2007, 05:40:04 PM
A delusional Freudian slip maybe?
Okay, now you've lost me. Where's the alleged Freudian slip???
Quotebut its still an athletics stadium. whats your point?
No, re read what i wrote. It was revamped as a soccer stadium for the 1990 World Cup. In doing so, they developed it in such a way that continues to allow athletics, i.e.: the anchor tenant are 2 soccer clubs (minimum 60 odd games per year) with 1 major athletics event per year.
You can't possible describe a stadium that was revamped for the soccer world cup as a soccer stadium and the usage of which is >98% soccer, as an athletics stadium, unless your tongue is firmly in cheek.
How would the arrangement at Stadio Olympico be different to SR being anchor tenants with the ground developed in such a way as to facilitate GAA games for a few times per year.
Quoteif gaelic games could be included they would be. they cant so they wont.
We have already discussed this and it is clear from the picture in the Star that a GAA ground
can be facilitated. There is only a matter of a couple of metres at stake in the width of the ground here and
this is not a blocking issue. Reduce the width of the GAA pitch by 2 metres presuming that the picture in the Star is accurate .... and that is a big presumption
QuoteAs mentioned earlier the respondent and the notice party contended that the applicant had neither a substantial interest nor had it demonstrated substantial grounds for having the decision quashed because the withdrawal of funding by the Minister for the modified development meant that development as modified by the resolution of the 12th December, 2005 could not go ahead and hence there was no benefit to the applicant from the quashing of the resolution of the 13th February, 2006.
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Barron's submission, to the effect that the absence or otherwise of funding is a matter which would go towards the exercise of the courts discretion to grant refief by way of judicial review in circumstances where the court having heard the judicial review application was of the view that the relief claimed was otherwise merited.
That being so this not a factor which would warrant the refusal of leave.
In all fairness, there is quite a distance between the interpretation of this and stating that the stadium will not host GAA
Quote from: blast05 on May 06, 2007, 09:38:12 PM
How would the arrangement at Stadio Olympico be different to SR being anchor tenants with the ground developed in such a way as to facilitate GAA games for a few times per year.
So for a few games per year - games that could easily be played elsewhere - you want the stadium "developed in such a way as to facilitate GAA games". Or in other words, you want a totally botched stadium, that is HUGELY reduced in value as a soccer venue, just for the sake of it.
Because unless you put the stands on wheels - that's what you get.
QuoteOr in other words, you want a totally botched stadium
Is the Stadio Olympico a botched stadium ?
Quote from: blast05 on May 06, 2007, 10:03:27 PM
Is the Stadio Olympico a botched stadium ?
Why??? Do you see a comparison???
I don't.
With what Thomas Davis envisage for Tallaght - you don't have comparable crowds or comparable atmosphere - in fact you don't even have a four-sided stadium.
Instead you have soccer fans in a smallish, half-finished stadium, sitting miles away from the action with little atmosphere - simply because a deluded, arrogant loon has decided that he needs the stadium a few times per year for GAA.
Great logic.
QuoteWhy??? Do you see a comparison???
I don't.
Oh my god, i see now why people have given up trying to talk logic to you.
I'll try 1 last time:
The comparison:
The stadio olympico was redeveloped as a municipal soccer stadium which would have as its anchor tenants 2 soccer teams. It was also decided to ensure the redevelopment allowed for another sport, in this case athletics.
The development in Tallaght is being developed as a municipal stadium with its anchor tenant a soccer team. What TD are looking for, is a decision to ensure the development will allow for another sport, in this case GAA sports.
If you are unable (or chose not to) to see a comparison here then i am wasting my time debating with you
And to my question from many posts ago: would the Stadio Olympico (or smaller version of) be a good enough stadium for Shamrock Rovers ? The answer here i can only surmise in the context of this debate is "No" which says all i need to know ........... but of course, if the revised SDCC proposal had suggested an athletics track instead of a GAA pitch and if this were also shot down by John O'Donoghue and a local athletic club (which originally owned the land but gave it up on the promise of a community facility) had sought a judicial review ..... would you be disputing the issue so fervently as you are ?
Although you will deny this, you know you wouldn't
Quote from: blast05 on May 06, 2007, 11:53:09 PM
The stadio olympico was redeveloped as a municipal soccer stadium which would have as its anchor tenants 2 soccer teams. It was also decided to ensure the redevelopment allowed for another sport, in this case athletics.
The development in Tallaght is being developed as a municipal stadium with its anchor tenant a soccer team. What TD are looking for, is a decision to ensure the development will allow for another sport, in this case GAA sports.
Your preachy, know-it-all waffle can't mask the fact that GAA can't be included without Tallaght Stadium being botched as a venue in general - and completely ruined as a venue for soccer in particular - just for the sake of a few GAA games per year.
Which is why Thomas Davis STILL won't show anyone their famous "plans". Get back to me when they do.
In the meantime, carry on making ludicrous comparisons if it makes you feel happier.
Seems to me that botching is twofold, the first in the years that the site was left untouched. Rover's club had been botching things for decades. The basis for a well run sports club is one that's owned and run by the membership. Do you think that the zillion GAA club facilities have just materialized after rubbing some State genie bottle? You really haven't got any appreciatian how it's done, have you?
Seems to me that Rovers fans have been blaming everybody and everything else over the years, except their inate inability to form a functioning effective board from the membership to run the club, purchase and build facilities.
Secondly, there is a population of 100,000 around Tallaght. City planners have shit for brains when it comes to infrastructure, schools, hospitals and sports. Instead of the issue being - where is the space for us to build our sports facilities? - it becomes divide and rule, fighting over scraps.
Quote from: Main Street on May 07, 2007, 12:51:40 PM
Seems to me that botching is twofold, the first in the years that the site was left untouched. Rover's club had been botching things for decades. The basis for a well run sports club is one that's owned and run by the membership.
Ironic seeing as Rovers are a members owned club and Kennedy is dictating things in TD....
Quote from: Main Street on May 07, 2007, 12:51:40 PMDo you think that the zillion GAA club facilities have just materialized after rubbing some State genie bottle? You really haven't got any appreciatian how it's done, have you?
and TD are doing what here exactly?
Quote from: Main Street on May 07, 2007, 12:51:40 PM
Secondly, there is a population of 100,000 around Tallaght. City planners have shit for brains when it comes to infrastructure, schools, hospitals and sports. Instead of the issue being - where is the space for us to build our sports facilities? - it becomes divide and rule, fighting over scraps.
that would be far more credible if it wasn't the GAA taking the unprecedentedly aggressive step of demanding that they are involved in another sports stadia.
Quoteand then soccer and rugby will leave a completely INTACT Croke Park forever
Then why did John O'Donoghue on Friday suggest that the GAA should leave Croke Park open for 2008 and beyond (as reported in yesterdays Irish Times) ??
QuoteYour preachy, know-it-all waffle can't mask the fact that GAA can't be included without Tallaght Stadium being botched as a venue in general
Call it what you want - waffle, preachy, whatever, but I am in the business of dealing with facts and what i referred to in regard the Stadio Olympico are facts.
I presented a very simple straight forward comparison based on these facts, and what are also facts are that the reveloped Stadio Olympico was good enough for a World Cup final and will be good enough for the Champions League final in 2009, but a stadium design using similar principles to those employed in the redevelopment of the Stadio Olympico is not good enough for Shamrcok Rovers.
You couldn't make it up ::)
Quote from: blast05 on May 07, 2007, 05:24:27 PM
but a stadium design using similar principles to those employed in the redevelopment of the Stadio Olympico is not good enough for Shamrcok Rovers.
Very high aspirations there. Have you managed to access those secret Thomas Davis plans and discovered that they have in fact defied physics and managed to fit a square peg into a round hole???
No, of course not.
Meaningless waffle won't lead to a proper, fully-finished logical stadium (including a full-sized GAA pitch).
Quote from: hoop on May 07, 2007, 05:36:27 PM
Meaningless waffle won't lead to a proper, fully-finished logical stadium (including a full-sized GAA pitch).
Five Minutes of Council/Minister/SR and TD/DCB sitting round a table would lead to the above.
It would make more sense than a Senior Manager of the Council writing childish letters to the local Paper FFS.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 07, 2007, 05:40:14 PM
Five Minutes of Council/Minister/SR and TD/DCB sitting round a table would lead to the above.
No it wouldn't, because it's not possible.
Which is why Thomas Davis won't show anyone their "plans".
Quote from: Rossfan on May 07, 2007, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: hoop on May 07, 2007, 05:36:27 PM
Meaningless waffle won't lead to a proper, fully-finished logical stadium (including a full-sized GAA pitch).
Five Minutes of Council/Minister/SR and TD/DCB sitting round a table would lead to the above.
It would make more sense than a Senior Manager of the Council writing childish letters to the local Paper FFS.
he was reacting to lies from TD about the councils position in the paper, as is his right.
QuoteCall it what you want - waffle, preachy, whatever, but I am in the business of dealing with facts and what i referred to in regard the Stadio Olympico are facts.
I presented a very simple straight forward comparison based on these facts, and what are also facts are that the reveloped Stadio Olympico was good enough for a World Cup final and will be good enough for the Champions League final in 2009, but a stadium design using similar principles to those employed in the redevelopment of the Stadio Olympico is not good enough for Shamrock Rovers.
Any comment ?
Hoop there you go again claiming things as 'a fact',if you can't back it up then you can't claim it to be a fact. I read the papers most days and I can't honestly remember reading that the GAA were blaming the IRFU or the FAI for the state of the pitch. However I would agree that if they GAA were trying to blame the condition of the pitch solely on the soccer and rugby games that it would be both pathetic and ludicrous. Most in the GAA would agree with playing the club finals in Croke Park thats what the stadium is there for and taking the financial hit is well worth the fulfilling of all those players sportring aspirations. Getting back to the Tallaght issue Dublinfella claimed SR offered to pay for the stadium themselves, is this true? And how much have SR actually paid into the project so far?
Quote from: hoop on May 07, 2007, 05:50:13 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on May 07, 2007, 05:40:14 PM
Five Minutes of Council/Minister/SR and TD/DCB sitting round a table would lead to the above.
No it wouldn't, because it's not possible.
Which is why Thomas Davis won't show anyone their "plans".
It would make more sense than a Senior Manager of the Council writing childish letters to the local Paper FFS.
he was reacting to lies from TD about the councils position in the paper, as is his right.
Why is it not possible for a group of people/organisations who all say they want to see a Stadium built
to sit around a table to sort out an agreeable outcome?
Senior Managers of a public body should be above writing to papers trying to childishly score points.
If Shamrock beggars had done what ALL other sports clubs do- raise 25% of the cost- the Stadium would have been built by 2003.Wonder why the County Manager's Deputy didnt mention that. Or if the County Manager had asked the Minister to respect the Councillor's original vote the Stadium could be up and running around now.
Then we have the 2 Soccer clowns saying that if the GAA had less Gaelic games in their own HQ the pitch wouldnt be damaged.
Jesus wept
Quote from: Rossfan on May 07, 2007, 10:32:41 PM
Then we have the 2 Soccer clowns saying that if the GAA had less Gaelic games in their own HQ the pitch wouldnt be damaged.
Yawn.....
Keep on twisting what was ACTUALLY said if it makes you feel any better.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 07, 2007, 10:32:41 PM
Senior Managers of a public body should be above writing to papers trying to childishly score points.
If Shamrock beggars had done what ALL other sports clubs do- raise 25% of the cost- the Stadium would have been built by 2003.Wonder why the County Manager's Deputy didnt mention that. Or if the County Manager had asked the Minister to respect the Councillor's original vote the Stadium could be up and running around now.
the original vote is what they are respecting.
TD have been going round and telling people they have the support of the council. he set the record straight.
Quotethe original vote is what they are respecting.
Yawn,
Dublinfella, even you know by now that the original vote
1. totally ignored the council's own public consultation process that overwhelmingly supported the GAA's inclusion in the project.
2. was solely a capitulation to the kerry gombeen refusing to fund a truly municipal multi-sport venue - before O'Donoghue had issued his diktat, the previous committee meeting had approved a multi sport venue. No other material issues had arisen in the intervening period to explain the decision.
firstly I am astonished this debate has gone on so long.
I'm not going to comment further on the issues as everything to be said has been said.
BUT I would like to draw admins attention to this comment from Dublinfella
"Its the GAA looking for the free handout here rainman"
I cant even begin to sya how offensive this is and it has been reported to admin.
Lads, no need for comments like that. Why does everything degenerate into name calling in these threads. Perhaps they go on too long and around in circles.
Dublinfella, I am deleting the comment in question. In the interest of fairness, could everyone please cut out the name calling as well. Dublinfella, hoop and the others have been subject to as much ill manners as they have doled out themselves.
Thanks
100% agree, I am as guilty as anyone.
Maybe its a good time to let this thread go?
Latest chapter was that today the court was due to set a date for the full hearing.
TD didnt have the 'correct documentation' so the case was adjourned yet again.
It is about getting TD in to the stadium asap and not about delaying the project indefinitley. Seriously, it is. ::)
Give over will ya, if you want to talk about the stadium open a thread, this is about Rovers Ultras and hasnt been posted on for days.
Yet still no apology for the insulting remarks you were reprimanded for I see ::)
dublinfella, your wanted over on the government about to fall thread when youve got the time...
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 11, 2007, 03:49:16 PM
Give over will ya, if you want to talk about the stadium open a thread, this is about Rovers Ultras and hasnt been posted on for days.
Yet still no apology for the insulting remarks you were reprimanded for I see ::)
I did open a thread on the stadium and was told to post all things related in this thread.
People might be interested in what happened in court today. They might not.
I apologise if the phrase offended, but the genereal point towords ML stands. He is a moron.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 11, 2007, 03:55:11 PM
I apologise if the phrase offended, but the genereal point towords ML stands. He is a moron.
And you return after your warning with more insults ::)
Will you ever learn
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 11, 2007, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on May 11, 2007, 03:55:11 PM
I apologise if the phrase offended, but the genereal point towords ML stands. He is a moron.
And you return after your warning with more insults ::)
Will you ever learn
thats not an insult, its a statement of my opinion of the bloke.
Calling someone a moron is not an insult.
Once again you astound me with your alternate version of reality :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 11, 2007, 04:02:40 PM
Calling someone a moron is not an insult.
Once again you astound me with your alternate version of reality :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
its a medical term.
any chance you might want to comment on TD's tactics today and its impact on capital grants being witheld in other clubs or is it easier to drag the thing off on tangent?
Quote from: dublinfella on May 11, 2007, 04:05:25 PM
..... or is it easier to drag the thing off on tangent?
As ever - Yes.
It's worth pointing out (again) that Thomas Davis have repeatedly stated that the SDCC and O'Donoghue are entirely to blame for the stadium being delayed.
Yet Thomas Davis are clearly the ONLY ONES involved that continually drag their feet in a deliberate attempt to hold up proceedings.
Hypocrites of the highest order.
Isnt it wonderful the way these Shamrock Beggars have the cheek to complain about anyone considering that they havent stirred a finger or raised a € to go towards the Free gift they await from Donohoe and the Council Manager.
If they had raised 25% of the cost of building a Stadium on the free site they were given they would be playing there since at least 2002.
What a pathetic shower of useless yokes. >:(
Quote from: Rossfan on May 12, 2007, 06:59:40 PM
Isnt it wonderful the way these Shamrock Beggars have the cheek to complain about anyone considering that they havent stirred a finger or raised a € to go towards the Free gift they await from Donohoe and the Council Manager.
If they had raised 25% of the cost of building a Stadium on the free site they were given they would be playing there since at least 2002.
What a pathetic shower of useless yokes. >:(
and round and round we go. its still free to Rovers desipte the fact its clearly not. TD not putting in a penny to a more expensive smaller ground is better than Rovers putting in €2m to a cheaper one. ::)
Rf, do you actually believe that shite?
Rovers cant put any thing in or 'lift a finger' because the High Court have injuncted to suspend work while TD drag it through the courts. Bizarre bullshit Rf.
Dublifella, how long more are you going to persist with the lie that SR have put in €2M? Time after time you've been shown it's a lie and you say nothing, wait a while and then trot it out again. So, once again - even SR themselves have claimed only €100K as their contribution.
The phantom €2M you keep referring to was claimed to have been contributed by the version of Shamrock Rovers that defrauded the Revenue and their suppliers and liquidated without paying their employees. And the notional €2M was not their money anyway.
So you cannot associate this imaginary €2M with the current SR and continue to claim the the current SR is not the crowd of gangsters who defrauded the public, their suppliers and their employees.
Otherwise, give me a justification for the public funding of a crowd of gangsters. I won't be surprised if you try, given your record here of defending scumbaggery and posting libel.
Quote from: Hardy on May 12, 2007, 07:51:55 PM
Dublifella, how long more are you going to persist with the lie that SR have put in €2M? Time after time you've been shown it's a lie and you say nothing, wait a while and then trot it out again. So, once again - even SR themselves have claimed only €100K as their contribution.
The phantom €2M you keep referring to was claimed to have been contributed by the version of Shamrock Rovers that defrauded the Revenue and their suppliers and liquidated without paying their employees. And the notional €2M was not their money anyway.
So you cannot associate this imaginary €2M with the current SR and continue to claim the the current SR is not the crowd of gangsters who defrauded the public, their suppliers and their employees.
Otherwise, give me a justification for the public funding of a crowd of gangsters. I won't be surprised if you try, given your record here of defending scumbaggery and posting libel.
the old SR put in 2m, the new 100k. either way they arent getting a 'free' stadium and have put in a great deal more than TD have offered. no-one outside this internet bubble is claiming Rovers are getting a free ground. its pathetic that even when TD arent trying that line there are legions of mongs on here who refuse to listen to the facts of the case.
defending scumbaggery and posting libel? thats hilarious.
At end of the day the GAA offeed r to build a 15 k to 20k stadium on the site , Rovers and their fans refused , Dublinfella your no better than the rover bigits. TD right to apply a proud where 95 +% of the cash is government funded and for some reason the government don't want to pay for a stadium for all sports
Quote from: Gnevin on May 13, 2007, 01:33:41 AM
At end of the day the GAA offeed r to build a 15 k to 20k stadium on the site , Rovers and their fans refused , Dublinfella your no better than the rover bigits. TD right to apply a proud where 95 +% of the cash is government funded and for some reason the government don't want to pay for a stadium for all sports
when did they do this? 20k? on a site that that the maximum with a soccer pitch is 10k? my arse.
all sports are catered for in the stadium. all that FIT.
if you think that there are no GAA facilities that got 95% funding you are on a different planet. it happens for all sports yet the GAA are the first to go legal to block another project. Its pathetic and puts other GAA plans in jeprody.
Interesting that the reason for the latest delay is that TD cant get anyone to go guarantor on the case. No one within the club or the association is willing to actually pay the fees for this debacle if they lose.... TD applied 3 weeks ago to have the costs awarded to themselves before the case, literally the first time anyone has tried this in Irish legal history. Got laughed out of court as you can imagine. So after all this shite, they dont even have a legal budget. Yet still the useful morons defend them. Its starting to fall apart and if costs are awarded to the state as is likely, TD are facing the brink. For one mans ego.
Thats what I have had the problem with all along.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 13, 2007, 04:27:39 AM
if you think that there are no GAA facilities that got 95% funding you are on a different planet.
I think there are no GAA facilities that got 95% funding. I'm willing to be corrected on that matter.
Ok, an insult to the handicapped which you are called up on, then say you were right in your comments, then call a guy a moron and defend it by saying its a medical term (unbelievable!) , then say "there are legions of mongs on here who refuse to listen to the facts of the case"
Mods, in fairness, its one thing to argue your case, but this guy is throwing names at ANYONE who disagrees with his points.
You made a seperate thread about posting standards, this guy is taking the biscuit!
Quote from: dublinfella on May 11, 2007, 04:05:25 PM
any chance you might want to comment on TD's tactics today and its impact on capital grants being witheld in other clubs or is it easier to drag the thing off on tangent?
I have no intentions on "debating" with you at your level, sure if you dont like what I post you will only call me names ::)
You have proved yourself unworthy of grown up debate.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2007, 11:35:37 AM
Mods, in fairness, its one thing to argue your case, but this guy is throwing names at ANYONE who disagrees with his points.
Gone all PC, have we?
Guess who posted the following: "And by the way, 30m is NOT miles. f**king idiot."
(Hint: You)
Quote from: hoop on May 13, 2007, 11:49:34 AM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2007, 11:35:37 AM
Mods, in fairness, its one thing to argue your case, but this guy is throwing names at ANYONE who disagrees with his points.
Gone all PC, have we?
Guess who posted the following: "And by the way, 30m is NOT miles. f**king idiot."
(Hint: You)
And I'm sure you have read my post agreeing with the moderator that it needs to stop in which I admitted I was as guilty as anyone.
HOWEVER the incidents I am talking about happened AFTER the moderator warned Dublinfella, yet he still continues with the name calling at EVERYONE who disagress with him.
And you are the last person to be commenting on this issue!
If it makes this level of football more desirable I am all for it.Something was needed to make it a conversation piece because it is simply awful to watch, akin in fact to sunday morning junior stuff.
Quote from: deiseach on May 13, 2007, 11:13:36 AM
Quote from: dublinfella on May 13, 2007, 04:27:39 AM
if you think that there are no GAA facilities that got 95% funding you are on a different planet.
I think there are no GAA facilities that got 95% funding. I'm willing to be corrected on that matter.
Pearse Stadium.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 13, 2007, 11:35:37 AM
Ok, an insult to the handicapped which you are called up on, then say you were right in your comments, then call a guy a moron and defend it by saying its a medical term (unbelievable!) , then say "there are legions of mongs on here who refuse to listen to the facts of the case"
Mods, in fairness, its one thing to argue your case, but this guy is throwing names at ANYONE who disagrees with his points.
You made a seperate thread about posting standards, this guy is taking the biscuit!
im saying that if people are still parroting the 'free' stadium line they are either a: lying or b: have a serious problem with acquiring knowledge. ie a moron. its not about disagreeing, its about the fact that certain posters are repeating this innaccurate line to the point where tts a legitiamate question as to how they can operate a computer.
there is a level of immaturity on this site that is unheard of on other GAA forums, especially on this issue. compare and contrast the discussion on this topic and any other one thats controversial with an fearr rua, hogan stand etc. the debate there has evolved and moved on. the debate here is still trotting out the same cliched andti-soccer shite thats only seen in this internet bubble.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 12, 2007, 08:08:03 PM
[
the old SR put in 2m, the new 100k. either way they arent getting a 'free' stadium and have put in a great deal more than TD have offered. no-one outside this internet bubble is claiming Rovers are getting a free ground. its pathetic that even when TD arent trying that line there are legions of mongs on here who refuse to listen to the facts of the case.
.
For ***** sake the "old Rovers " got a grant of either €1.5 or €1.9m off the Govt. They then charged the South Dublin Council €1.5m to give them back the lease OF THE COUNCIL'S OWN LAND !!!!!.
Now the Council/Govt want to build a Stadium at the public purse's expense which the Shambeggars will walk into !!!
To whom did the "new SH Rovers" give 100 k???
It was hardly to the Council was it seeing as they had to pay the various design people(Architects/Engineers/Q Surveyors a load of arrears they were due from the "old Rovers"
If it is true that
-the GAA(Dublin Co Board) offered to complete the Stadium at no cost to the Council
-but the Council refused and
-would prefer to spend a total of €11m building a Free Soccer Stadium for
-a professional soccer club that sold its own ground 20 years ago and
-couldnt make use of the free site but charged 1.5m to give it back
Is it not time the Government's Auditor and Comptroller General was called in to investigate.
Or perhaps to save all the GAA people on this board(i e everyone except DF and hoop) from further annoyance maybe the Admin could close this subject.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 13, 2007, 06:49:05 PM
If it is true that
-the GAA(Dublin Co Board) offered to complete the Stadium at no cost to the Council
-but the Council refused and
-would prefer to spend a total of €11m building a Free Soccer Stadium for
-a professional soccer club that sold its own ground 20 years ago and
-couldnt make use of the free site but charged 1.5m to give it back
Is it not time the Government's Auditor and Comptroller General was called in to investigate.
Or perhaps to save all the GAA people on this board(i e everyone except DF and hoop) from further annoyance maybe the Admin could close this subject.
First of all spout a load of lies and bullshit..... and then request that the thread be closed down.
That just about sums up this thread so far.
Well done.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 13, 2007, 06:49:05 PM
If it is true that
-the GAA(Dublin Co Board) offered to complete the Stadium at no cost to the Council
-but the Council refused and
-would prefer to spend a total of €11m building a Free Soccer Stadium for
absouletly untrue. you should be able to provide a link to that..... but you cant because its a barefaced lie. the GAA have never offered the council a penny. and well you know it.
and its an extra €11m if TD get their way in terms of the extra work etc.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 13, 2007, 01:53:01 PM
Pearse Stadium.
The one in Galway? I can't find anything online to substantiate that. Plenty of articles though about the likes of Bryan Adams (http://www.bryanadams.org/english/2006/02/23/bryan-adams-tickets-selling-fast/) and Bob Dylan (http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=95&si=1308318&issue_id=11845) being employed to help reduce the debt
from www.shamrockrovers.ie -
Court Update - 12 May 2007
Rovers were in the High Court at yesterdays continuation of the judicial review. South Dublin County Council requested an adjournment as Cumann Tomas Daibhis had not provided their trustee's details as they had agreed to do on the judges request at the previous hearing. CTD agreed to the adjournment. The court directed that CTD have to provide these details for the next hearing on June 8th.
Absolutely pathetic. All huff, puff, bluster, arrogance and indignation - but totally unwilling to follow the rules of the Judicial Review that they themselves have instigated.
Oh sorry - I forgot - it's the GAA. They make up their own rules, don't they???
Quote from: hoop on May 13, 2007, 07:16:13 PM
[You got banned for pretending to be a neutral bystander. Trouble was - after about three posts, everyone knew that you were a blatant hard-line GAA apologist.
Try harder.
Oh do you mean like when Dublinfella came on here first saying he was a GAA man and not a Rovers fan?
Quote from: hoop on May 13, 2007, 11:40:48 PM
from www.shamrockrovers.ie -
Court Update - 12 May 2007
Rovers were in the High Court at yesterdays continuation of the judicial review. South Dublin County Council requested an adjournment as Cumann Tomas Daibhis had not provided their trustee's details as they had agreed to do on the judges request at the previous hearing. CTD agreed to the adjournment. The court directed that CTD have to provide these details for the next hearing on June 8th.
Absolutely pathetic. All huff, puff, bluster, arrogance and indignation - but totally unwilling to follow the rules of the Judicial Review that they themselves have instigated.
Oh sorry - I forgot - it's the GAA. They make up their own rules, don't they???
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh how i laughed !!. Hoop theres a certain element of desperation creeping in on the SR side. Think you boys are getting a wee bit nervous.
As i said earlier, i await the day when you freeloaders get nothing and this all blows up in your face.....
Quoteany change of government will have lifelong Rovers fan Rabbit as Tainiste
A man bred, born and reared in Mayo is a lifelong Rovers fan ?? Mayo GAA definitely but if a fan of Rovers too it hasn't been lifelong.
Just had a quick look on the Rovers Ultras forum, theres a thread about a game versus Drogheda called "Rovers V Whingers"
In this thread there are several more comments like "whingy cnuts" directed at Drogheda because of their complaints when the Rovers fans (plural) mocked the Drogheda player over his wife dying of cancer.
Nasty bastards.
Out of interest I registered on the Rovers forum and posted 3 times this morning.
Post 1) The GAA were referred to as wankers and I posted to say that that sort of talk does them no favours in the publics eyes, saying several Rovers fans were posting on GAA sites calling names as mocking the handicapped etc and its just not on.
Post 2) I asked why the Ultas thread was locked, even when you register.
Post 3) In the "whingers" thread I posted "can you tell me why you refer to Drogheda as whingers? serious question"
Less that 2 minutes after the third post I have been banned for life!!!! :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Hoop, Dublinfella, maybe you freinds can enlighten me as to why I was banned?
Its funny how ye keep saying how blinkered we are on this site yet you are continually allowed to spout abuse yet our "tolerant" freinds at Rovers ban me for the above!
Seriously, why was I banned?????
Incidentally I see they gave a very valid reason for the banning, this is copied and pasted from their site....
"You have been banned for the following reason:
None
Date the ban will be lifted: Never"
:o
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 14, 2007, 09:56:27 AM
Seriously, why was I banned?????
Probably because you were preaching and asking extremely stupid questions with the intention of getting banned so that you could prove some point.
Quote from: Bensars on May 14, 2007, 09:42:13 AM
Quote from: hoop on May 13, 2007, 11:40:48 PM
from www.shamrockrovers.ie -
Court Update - 12 May 2007
Rovers were in the High Court at yesterdays continuation of the judicial review. South Dublin County Council requested an adjournment as Cumann Tomas Daibhis had not provided their trustee's details as they had agreed to do on the judges request at the previous hearing. CTD agreed to the adjournment. The court directed that CTD have to provide these details for the next hearing on June 8th.
Absolutely pathetic. All huff, puff, bluster, arrogance and indignation - but totally unwilling to follow the rules of the Judicial Review that they themselves have instigated.
Oh sorry - I forgot - it's the GAA. They make up their own rules, don't they???
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh how i laughed !!. Hoop theres a certain element of desperation creeping in on the SR side. Think you boys are getting a wee bit nervous.
As i said earlier, i await the day when you freeloaders get nothing and this all blows up in your face.....
Im mystified as to how TD not being able to get anyone to go guarentor is 'desperation' on Rovers part. I'd be interested to see you expand that thesis.
Holiness, I assume that the Rovers Ultras site is for, well Rovers Ultras. a lot more specific in its audience than a GAA board. I presume they allow fans of their club to post and well behaved guests. More like reservoir dubs than gaaboard.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 14, 2007, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: Bensars on May 14, 2007, 09:42:13 AM
Quote from: hoop on May 13, 2007, 11:40:48 PM
from www.shamrockrovers.ie -
Court Update - 12 May 2007
Rovers were in the High Court at yesterdays continuation of the judicial review. South Dublin County Council requested an adjournment as Cumann Tomas Daibhis had not provided their trustee's details as they had agreed to do on the judges request at the previous hearing. CTD agreed to the adjournment. The court directed that CTD have to provide these details for the next hearing on June 8th.
Absolutely pathetic. All huff, puff, bluster, arrogance and indignation - but totally unwilling to follow the rules of the Judicial Review that they themselves have instigated.
Oh sorry - I forgot - it's the GAA. They make up their own rules, don't they???
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh how i laughed !!. Hoop theres a certain element of desperation creeping in on the SR side. Think you boys are getting a wee bit nervous.
As i said earlier, i await the day when you freeloaders get nothing and this all blows up in your face.....
Im mystified as to how TD not being able to get anyone to go guarentor is 'desperation' on Rovers part. I'd be interested to see you expand that thesis.
Holiness, I assume that the Rovers Ultras site is for, well Rovers Ultras. a lot more specific in its audience than a GAA board. I presume they allow fans of their club to post and well behaved guests. More like reservoir dubs than gaaboard.
dublinfella.
No one has ever been banned from res dubs for disagreement. Mocked and ridiculed absolutely.
Banned, never.
Quote from: resdubwhite on May 14, 2007, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on May 14, 2007, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: Bensars on May 14, 2007, 09:42:13 AM
Quote from: hoop on May 13, 2007, 11:40:48 PM
from www.shamrockrovers.ie -
Court Update - 12 May 2007
Rovers were in the High Court at yesterdays continuation of the judicial review. South Dublin County Council requested an adjournment as Cumann Tomas Daibhis had not provided their trustee's details as they had agreed to do on the judges request at the previous hearing. CTD agreed to the adjournment. The court directed that CTD have to provide these details for the next hearing on June 8th.
Absolutely pathetic. All huff, puff, bluster, arrogance and indignation - but totally unwilling to follow the rules of the Judicial Review that they themselves have instigated.
Oh sorry - I forgot - it's the GAA. They make up their own rules, don't they???
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh how i laughed !!. Hoop theres a certain element of desperation creeping in on the SR side. Think you boys are getting a wee bit nervous.
As i said earlier, i await the day when you freeloaders get nothing and this all blows up in your face.....
Im mystified as to how TD not being able to get anyone to go guarentor is 'desperation' on Rovers part. I'd be interested to see you expand that thesis.
Holiness, I assume that the Rovers Ultras site is for, well Rovers Ultras. a lot more specific in its audience than a GAA board. I presume they allow fans of their club to post and well behaved guests. More like reservoir dubs than gaaboard.
dublinfella.
No one has ever been banned from res dubs for disagreement. Mocked and ridiculed absolutely.
Banned, never.
Why are you telling me? I dont care what happens on their forum. Im assuming that their site is for their fans only and when someone pops up to wind them up like ML and holyman they got lagged. Its their lookout who they let on their fan site. Comparing it to a generic GAA site is apples and oranges. They set out to stir it up and got banned. Yawn.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 14, 2007, 02:59:02 PM
when someone pops up to wind them up like ML and holyman they got lagged. They set out to stir it up and got banned. Yawn.
So when I defend the GAA when they are called called "wankers" i'm winding them up??
When I ask why the Ultras forum is private its on the wind up, when I aske why they were referring to Drogheda as whingers I am on the wind up????
Yet you call people "mongs" "rainman" "moron" etc for disagreeing with you on a
GAA forum you specifically signed up to so you can bash the GAA in. And somehow manage to justify it all!!!
Heres a bit of the "backlash from my earlier posts there..
from His Holiness....
"Lads its that kind of talk that does ye no favours in the publics eyes.
You have Rovers fans coming onto gaa sites and calling all sorts of names to anyone in disagreement with them, making fun of the handicapped and such.
Its really painting you all in a bad light.
At least show some manners!"
Reply from "WEAREROVERS".....
How's about this for manners - GO f**k YOURSELF YOU GAA ****"
Now the lovely "Buzz"....
"We've had separation of church and State.. its now beyond time for separation of Gaa and State"
Then I got banned as informed by "Northside Hoop"
"He's been banned
ROVERS ROVERS ROVERS
NO SURRENDER TO THE GAA"
Northside Hoops avatar is the GAA logo, underneath which It says "know your enemy" he is the moderator I believe!
And these are the sort of people we are dealing with, scum of the highest order.
Jesus they nickname Drogheda "whingers" for giving out about the Webb incident!!!!
Thats unreal!!!
Quote from: dublinfella on May 14, 2007, 02:59:02 PM
Quote from: resdubwhite on May 14, 2007, 01:44:41 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on May 14, 2007, 12:57:09 PM
Quote from: Bensars on May 14, 2007, 09:42:13 AM
Quote from: hoop on May 13, 2007, 11:40:48 PM
from www.shamrockrovers.ie -
Court Update - 12 May 2007
Rovers were in the High Court at yesterdays continuation of the judicial review. South Dublin County Council requested an adjournment as Cumann Tomas Daibhis had not provided their trustee's details as they had agreed to do on the judges request at the previous hearing. CTD agreed to the adjournment. The court directed that CTD have to provide these details for the next hearing on June 8th.
Absolutely pathetic. All huff, puff, bluster, arrogance and indignation - but totally unwilling to follow the rules of the Judicial Review that they themselves have instigated.
Oh sorry - I forgot - it's the GAA. They make up their own rules, don't they???
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Oh how i laughed !!. Hoop theres a certain element of desperation creeping in on the SR side. Think you boys are getting a wee bit nervous.
As i said earlier, i await the day when you freeloaders get nothing and this all blows up in your face.....
Im mystified as to how TD not being able to get anyone to go guarentor is 'desperation' on Rovers part. I'd be interested to see you expand that thesis.
Holiness, I assume that the Rovers Ultras site is for, well Rovers Ultras. a lot more specific in its audience than a GAA board. I presume they allow fans of their club to post and well behaved guests. More like reservoir dubs than gaaboard.
dublinfella.
No one has ever been banned from res dubs for disagreement. Mocked and ridiculed absolutely.
Banned, never.
Why are you telling me? I dont care what happens on their forum. Im assuming that their site is for their fans only and when someone pops up to wind them up like ML and holyman they got lagged. Its their lookout who they let on their fan site. Comparing it to a generic GAA site is apples and oranges. They set out to stir it up and got banned. Yawn.
no.
They set out to argue their point and got lagged.
this thread's still going?
can someone summarise the last 15 or so pages for me please. I can't be arsed reading it.
cheers.
The last 15 pages....
your a p***k,
no your a p***k,
no your a p***k
Meanwhile the mods issued warnings over inappropriate posts while the Rover site is banning anyone they detect a hint of fondness for the GAA off.
In a nutshell!
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 14, 2007, 05:13:39 PM
Jesus they nickname Drogheda "whingers" for giving out about the Webb incident!!!!
Thats unreal!!!
100 PER CENT UNTRUE.
The reason that Drogheda were called "whingers" is ONLY to do with the fact that they wanted the recent League Cup game against Rovers cancelled due to squad injuries. This hit a very raw nerve because it was the exact same tactic used CONSTANTLY by Shels in previous seasons. Any time they looked like possibly losing due to injuries, they starting looking for a cancellation - yet all other clubs simply got on with it, injuries or not.
I can assure you that "whingers" has NOTHING to do with Webb.
-----
EDIT - I see that you're back on the Ultras forum with a new name (easy to spot). You must be bloody desperate for an argument.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 14, 2007, 05:40:40 PM
The last 15 pages....
your a p***k,
no your a p***k,
no your a p***k
Meanwhile the mods issued warnings over inappropriate posts while the Rover site is banning anyone they detect a hint of fondness for the GAA off.
In a nutshell!
that was the 15 pages before that too (apart from the mods bit - though they could have piped in at any time I suppose).
I'll be back when it gets to 80 pages looking for another summary. See you then!
Quote from: hoop on May 14, 2007, 06:05:59 PM
I see that you're back on the Ultras forum with a new name (easy to spot). You must be bloody desperate for an argument.
Well I didnt exactly try to hide myself ::)
did you see my post? I asked what Doolin of Drogheda did to get the "whinger" tag.
That was all, hardly desperate for an argument now is it? especially given the previous comment directed at me "How's about this for manners - GO f**k YOURSELF YOU GAA ****"
Care to comment on that and the fact that I didnt rise to it?
Yeah desperate for an argument all right ::)
Incidentally, your "desperate for an argument comments are a bit a bit rich considering your reason for joining a GAA board!
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 14, 2007, 06:27:13 PM
Well I didnt exactly try to hide myself
Now it's getting confusing on the Ultras site. Your present persona is innocently asking why your previous persona was banned.
Bizarre.
Whatever keeps you happy.....
Quote from: hoop on May 14, 2007, 06:39:37 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 14, 2007, 06:27:13 PM
Well I didnt exactly try to hide myself
Now it's getting confusing on the Ultras site. Your present persona is innocently asking why your previous persona was banned.
Bizarre.
Whatever keeps you happy.....
hoop, care to tell us why his holiness was banned?
So should I say "that was me getting banned earlier".
They would just ban me again ::)
Here is an example of Rovers tolerance, Hoop count yourself lucky the mods here arent so rude!
Originally Posted by me
"Just signed up today and am reading this post trying to work out the above banning.
Is it not ok to be a GAA fan here?
Seemed a pretty harsh banning"
Post from Manic Da Hoop
"It's not ok to be a GAA fan anywhere if you ask me"
Post from S Side Hoop
"not if youve come on here to WUM! do you want to be banned too???"
Post from me
"Jesus sorry, threats of banning for a simple question
Manic the Hoop has answered my question anyway cheers"
Post from Manic Da Hoop
"You're welcome. Don't forget to close the door behind you on the way out"
have you stopped to ask why there might be hostility to the GAA on a Shamrock Rovers forum? Why now when there was never any before? If Buzz is who I think he is he is well known in Dublin GAA circles. Now why would a veteran clubman and fanatical Dubs and Rovers fan be acting like that now?
No ideas? None at all?
Get a grip lads, you know full well why there is hostility to the GAA on there. And you know it was never there before.
i havent posted on this thread yet and i got bored of it last week but its getting better!
If Buzz is who I think
stop it your killing me
Quote from: ludermor on May 14, 2007, 10:20:04 PM
i havent posted on this thread yet and i got bored of it last week but its getting better!
If Buzz is who I think
stop it your killing me
Anyone connected with the GAA in Dublins Northside will odds on know who Buzz the Rovers fan is.
Its not that big a town.
Quote from: hoop on May 15, 2007, 08:13:44 AMBefore Thomas Davis turned up, nobody on the Rovers forum gave a damn about the GAA. Well apart from the many Rovers fans who were also Dubs fans that is - but now they're only Rovers fans.
No bloody loss, a few less "Ultras" following Dublin would be just the treat.
Update of the bigots at the Rovers Ultras site.
His holiness replied "thanks for the welcome" along with a confused face in reply to "dont let the door hit you on the way out" from Manid Da Hoop.
And when checking back this morning I got "You have been banned for the following reason:
None
Date the ban will be lifted: Never"
Hoop / Dublinfella, why was I banned???
To say "there is obviously hostility to the GAA there" is a cop out, I never once argued for Thomas Davis on there, just asked a few simple questions and defended the GAA when they were called "wankers", and all in a polite manner.
Yet you dont see the irony in that you repeatedly post insults on here and dont get banned.
And ye have the nerve to call us bigoted and intolerant !!
:D :D :D :D :D
Simple question, yes or no answer will do, were they right to ban me?
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on May 15, 2007, 09:40:28 AM
Quote from: hoop on May 15, 2007, 08:13:44 AMBefore Thomas Davis turned up, nobody on the Rovers forum gave a damn about the GAA. Well apart from the many Rovers fans who were also Dubs fans that is - but now they're only Rovers fans.
No bloody loss, a few less "Ultras" following Dublin would be just the treat.
I'm sure all 10,000 ultras were diehard dubs alright. Why are we still talking about these saps.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2007, 09:42:13 AM
Simple question, yes or no answer will do, were they right to ban me?
With far less activity on the Ultras site than here, it's pretty easy to spot someone who has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say and is merely trying to shit stir. Since you went there with the intention of getting banned so that you could gloat about it here - why are you asking if it was right???
I cant imagine why there's not much acitivity on the ultras site.
Quote from: tayto on May 15, 2007, 10:12:50 AM
I cant imagine why there's not much acitivity on the ultras site.
I forgot two important words: "than here".
Now edited.
Heres more examples of the Rovers "manners"
I posted "Manic, thanks for the welcome!"
And got from Manic Da Hoop "You still here?"
RoverstillIdie then posted
"if you cant figure out why the GAA and its apologists arent popular around here, you must be a bogballer.
this is a forum for Rovers fans. if they happen to be gah too, thats fine. if not, f**k off back to hoganstand"
The the Red Doyle (moderator) posted
"Sorry it took so long.. Not many Mod's around...."
This as he banned me (again for what????)
The the lovely Northside Dub (another moderator) posted..
"The internets a huge place, find someone who gives a f**k"
So this is how it is, Rovers fans are welcomed on here to debate their points, we argue against them but thats what forums are for.
Gaaboard has put up with a lot of out of order comments from them, but sure there you go.
On the other hand, Rovers Ultras give dogs abuse and bannings out for merely being a GAA fan and daring to suggest calling them wankers is not on.
Seems the biggest bigots over there are actually the moderators!
Sorry to drag this thread on, but we seem finally to have gotten back to the actual title subject, the Rovers Ultras website.
And I think its a very valid point to show how GAA people are treated there in comparison with our Rovers fans here.
Quote from: hoop on May 15, 2007, 10:09:32 AM
With far less activity on the Ultras site than here, it's pretty easy to spot someone who has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say and is merely trying to shit stir. Since you went there with the intention of getting banned so that you could gloat about it here - why are you asking if it was right???
I had no intentions of getting banned, this is why I posted my questions in a polite manner, and didnt once mention Tallaght.
If I wanted to get banned I would have at least get the satisfaction of trading an insult or two.
ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHY WAS I BANNED???
And dont say cause I was stirring shit, because I clearly wasnt.
Unless you mean by defending the GAA I was stirring, in which case, why are you here????? ???
Watch out for the thought police nb, they knew you were there to cause trouble! hahahahha hilarious. listen i wouldnt say debate is a strong point, especially if, god forbid, you're not a rover fan and, more importantly, you dont think like a rovers fan. jesus wept. ultras ... teeheee ...
as long as that ultra site continues to have the 'td can f off and die' banner across it its going to continue to attract lowlifes and get no support from anyone. hoop/dublinfella i wouldnt tolerate a 'shamrock rovers can f off and die' banner here so ye guys should start working on the fcukwits on that site first...
Magickingdom, they fully approve of the banner.
I think the thread has come full circle in that we are back to the title topic and its agreed that they are scum.
Why didnt we just wrap it up on page one!! ;D
i wouldnt worry too much, it wont be long before whatever funds they have are misappropriated again !!
No, money, no pitch.........adios..............everyones a winner.
In the words of del boy Luvy jubbly
seriously you'd have to wonder about anyone over 15 who thinks ultras are a good idea ... jesus wept ... they seem to practice roughly what you'd expect so i suggest you leave them off to their own thing, they won't be missed on the hill that's for sure.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 23, 2007, 04:20:33 PM
Theres me hoping this thread would end after 30 pages of the same old arguments going back and forth, and who joins in?
Sammy G and Evil Genius.
Roll on page 60 ;)
and then there was 60... think you were going to get away with this one his holiness? cant blame sammy or eg for the last 30 pages :D
Nah that was a tongue in cheek comment re Sammy and EG because of their prolonged debates in other threads, was just a wee joke.
Incidentally your post started page 61 ;)
oh no! ;D
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2007, 12:50:06 PM
I think the thread has come full circle in that we are back to the title topic and its agreed that they are scum.
So over on the Ultras site you have signed up for a third time in 24 hours to whinge that Rovers fans are intolerant and that you can't understand why the "mannerly" posts from your other two personas resulted in bannings.
Yet back here on gaaboard, your day-job persona proclaims that "they are scum".
Your self-righteous waffle is starting to make you look pretty stupid.
I think they are scum yes, but they didnt know that on the Rovers forum, all they knew was that I was a GAA man asking mannerly questions.
SO WHY WAS I BANNED??????
Hoop, the only reason you havent had to sign up on seperate occasions was that we put up with your shite here.
If the mods here were anything like the Ultras mods (god forbid) you would be banned just on your username alone!
I noticed you were online 2 or 3 times in the last few hours reading my post before coming up with your last post, had a good sit down and think before replying eh ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2007, 03:22:17 PM
I think they are scum yes, but they didnt know that on the Rovers forum, all they knew was that I was a GAA man asking mannerly questions.
SO WHY WAS I BANNED???
You've just answered your own question. You must think the mods over there are incredibly stupid.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2007, 03:22:17 PM
I noticed you were online 2 or 3 times in the last few hours reading my post before coming up with your last post, had a good sit down and think before replying eh
That's pretty obsessive behaviour.
Do you think that having a quick glance at a forum obliges the user to write something immediately??? Some of us have other lives outside the internet.
Quote from: hoop on May 15, 2007, 03:25:47 PM
You've just answered your own question. You must think the mods over there are incredibly stupid.
I politely defended the GAA! No more, no less!!
WHY WAS I BANNED!!!???!!??
Are you capable of answering that???
I dont think the mods are stupid just bigoted.
But by your logic the mods here must be terribly stupid for entertaining you!!
Incidentally All 3 "personas" were mannerly, all 3 were banned.
None mentioned Tallaght.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2007, 03:33:31 PM
WHY WAS I BANNED!!!???!!??
I've already answered that question a couple of times.
Maybe you think that the tolerance threshold is set a bit low on the Ultras forum - but that's because you also believe that Thomas Davis are right - no matter how much evidence to the contrary is produced.
But I'm not starting that debate again.....
Quote from: hoop on May 15, 2007, 03:43:44 PM
I've already answered that question a couple of times.
no you havent!!
I wasnt on the wind up, that is very obvious. I was polite at all times.
WHY WAS I BANNED???????
Quotebut that's because you also believe that Thomas Davis are right
How would the moderators on the Ultras board tie that one together? Based on the fact that you have said that TD are losing support from other GAA clubs then how would the Ultras mods know whether 'his holiness' backed TD or not ?
It's obvious lads, hoop is one of the moderators on that site.
Quote from: blast05 on May 15, 2007, 04:00:31 PM
How would the moderators on the Ultras board tie that one together? Based on the fact that you have said that TD are losing support from other GAA clubs then how would the Ultras mods know whether 'his holiness' backed TD or not ?
I didn't say anything about the mods - I just referred to 'his holiness' complete lack of understanding for the low tolerance threshold. GAA is not flavour of the month on the Ultras forum. So GAA heads trying to stir shit without having anything of worth to say gets noticed fairly quickly.
Quote from: Croí na hÉireann on May 15, 2007, 04:05:18 PM
It's obvious lads, hoop is one of the moderators on that site.
Nice try Sherlock. But absolutely wrong.
WHY WAS I BANNED HOOP!!??
this is hilarious.
obviously their form should be municipal and open to the GAA too ;D
QuoteWHY WAS I BANNED HOOP!!??
The hard questions are always avoided cos the know the simple answer is "We are bigots."
My point below was never addressed either despite repeated attempts to look for a comment, but of course it will be taken out of context now and replied to with some unrelated shite.
QuoteCall it what you want - waffle, preachy, whatever, but I am in the business of dealing with facts and what i referred to in regard the Stadio Olympico are facts.
I presented a very simple straight forward comparison based on these facts, and what are also facts are that the reveloped Stadio Olympico was good enough for a World Cup final and will be good enough for the Champions League final in 2009, but a stadium design using similar principles to those employed in the redevelopment of the Stadio Olympico is not good enough for Shamrock Rovers.
Any comment ?
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 04:59:55 PM
this is hilarious.
obviously their form should be municipal and open to the GAA too ;D
So you are saying the GAA board should be open to anti GAA Rovers fans yet GAA people should be banned from the Rovers forum, and not even for argueing about Tallaght (which was never mentioned) but for just being a GAA fan?
Dublinfella, maybe you can tell me why I was banned??
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2007, 05:04:31 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 04:59:55 PM
this is hilarious.
obviously their form should be municipal and open to the GAA too ;D
So you are saying the GAA board should be open to anti GAA Rovers fans yet GAA people should be banned from the Rovers forum, and not even for argueing about Tallaght (which was never mentioned) but for just being a GAA fan?
Dublinfella, maybe you can tell me why I was banned??
it really bothers you, doesnt it? ;D
I assume you were banned because you went on and started talking about 'rovers fans abusing disabled people on gaa forums' and they decided you were a loon and pulled the plug.
they have no obligation to allow non-rovers fans and you went in looking for confrontation.
the difference is I am a member of the gaa and my opinion is as valid here as you. hoop could argue he is also a gaa fan. neither of us can say we are rovers ultras so we have no god given right to be there.
imagine how you come across to them. demanding access to their forum too ::)
The Ultras forum is a strange spot.
Not to get banned, I'd advise adopting the industrial vernacular of uneducated British inner city chimney sweep or docker.
Muse about "Shelbourne filth", "Bohs scum" and tell the GAA to "fcuk off and die" or similar ape like grunting and you'll be grand.
Quote from: blast05 on May 15, 2007, 05:01:27 PM
The hard questions are always avoided cos the know the simple answer is "We are bigots."
My point below was never addressed either despite repeated attempts to look for a comment, but of course it will be taken out of context now and replied to with some unrelated shite.
Are you still touting a picture of a fully-completed 60,000-seater Italian stadium as an argument for unnecessarily completely botching a much smaller stadium in Tallaght - so that a few GAA games can be played there every year??? Why don't you show this brilliant "evidence" to the South Dublin County Council. I'm sure they would be delighted that you have solved the problem.
And before you claim that your point "was never addressed" maybe you might like to actually read the posts. It was addressed - possibly not at any great length, but that's because your "point" is simply laughable.
Any other nice pictures of stadiums you would like to show us as evidence of something or other?
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 05:28:48 PMthe difference is I am a member of the gaa and my opinion is as valid here as you. hoop could argue he is also a gaa fan. neither of us can say we are rovers ultras so we have no god given right to be there.
Stop sniggering down the back there. When you've got an opinion to offer on actual GAA playing matters then maybe you would stand a better chance of passing yourself off as a GAA member. In the meantime stop pissing against the wind.
QuoteAre you still touting a picture of a fully-completed 60,000-seater Italian stadium as an argument for unnecessarily completely botching a much smaller stadium in Tallaght - so that a few GAA games can be played there every year??? Why don't you show this brilliant "evidence" to the South Dublin County Council. I'm sure they would be delighted that you have solved the problem.
And before you claim that your point "was never addressed" maybe you might like to actually read the posts. It was addressed - possibly not at any great length, but that's because your "point" is simply laughable.
Any other nice pictures of stadiums you would like to show us as evidence of something or other?
Well i can take this as definitive an answer as i will get so and it basically goes like this:
A 10,000 seater stadium designed using the same principles as those used in the design of a stadium that was redeveloped for the World Cup Final in 1990 and will host the Champions League Final in 2009 would not be good enough for Shamrock Rovers.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 05:28:48 PM
I assume you were banned because you went on and started talking about 'rovers fans abusing disabled people on gaa forums' and they decided you were a loon and pulled the plug.
A loon for telling them what YOU did? The "rainman" comment which the mods even removed as it was so offensive?
Are you denying that happened?
Oh but I forgot, you are not a Rovers fan :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
And nobody believes you are a GAA fan, thats just bullshit.
Maybe I should have started there by saying I was a Rovers fan ::)
"Hoop could argue he is a gaa fan"
Now thats the statement of the year! :D :D :D :D :D
It doesnt bother me that I was banned, its full of scummy bigots anyway.
I just find it amusing that you can justify it given the tolerance shown to you on here.
Quote from: blast05 on May 15, 2007, 07:36:20 PM
QuoteAre you still touting a picture of a fully-completed 60,000-seater Italian stadium as an argument for unnecessarily completely botching a much smaller stadium in Tallaght - so that a few GAA games can be played there every year??? Why don't you show this brilliant "evidence" to the South Dublin County Council. I'm sure they would be delighted that you have solved the problem.
And before you claim that your point "was never addressed" maybe you might like to actually read the posts. It was addressed - possibly not at any great length, but that's because your "point" is simply laughable.
Any other nice pictures of stadiums you would like to show us as evidence of something or other?
Well i can take this as definitive an answer as i will get so and it basically goes like this:
A 10,000 seater stadium designed using the same principles as those used in the design of a stadium that was redeveloped for the World Cup Final in 1990 and will host the Champions League Final in 2009 would not be good enough for Shamrock Rovers.
If Shamrock Rovers were moving into a stadium built to house athletics that line of argument would be relevent. Soccer fits in the middle of athletics stadia.
They arent. They are moving into a purpose built soccer ground. Gaelic games dont fit in the middle of soccer grounds.
And you are dealing with the Italian culture of building facilities for all sports based on demand, in that context soccer clubs sacrifice views for state of the art stadia in prime locations. No-one suing and no-one refusing to share.
Apples and oranges.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 15, 2007, 07:44:31 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 05:28:48 PM
I assume you were banned because you went on and started talking about 'rovers fans abusing disabled people on gaa forums' and they decided you were a loon and pulled the plug.
A loon for telling them what YOU did? The "rainman" comment which the mods even removed as it was so offensive?
Are you denying that happened?
Oh but I forgot, you are not a Rovers fan :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
And nobody believes you are a GAA fan, thats just bullshit.
Maybe I should have started there by saying I was a Rovers fan ::)
"Hoop could argue he is a gaa fan"
Now thats the statement of the year! :D :D :D :D :D
It doesnt bother me that I was banned, its full of scummy bigots anyway.
I just find it amusing that you can justify it given the tolerance shown to you on here.
It was me you claimed was the 'Rovers fan abusing disabled children'? ??? No wonder you got lagged for being a random nutter. You really need a hug or something. Get over yourself, you went onto a closed forum for members of a club and stirred it up to play the victim when the inevitible happens. What did you prove? You can get barred. Someone give the monkey a banana.
Maybe you should have stated you were a Rovers fan. On a Rovers forum. Imagine. ::) Whatever next.
This forum is a generic forum for all GAA supporters. Some here are county players, some are club chairmen, some have never been to a game in their lives. You dont have the right to declare who is or isnt a 'fan' you arrogent tosser.
Quote from: blast05 on May 15, 2007, 07:36:20 PM
Well i can take this as definitive an answer as i will get so and it basically goes like this:
A 10,000 seater stadium designed using the same principles as those used in the design of a stadium that was redeveloped for the World Cup Final in 1990 and will host the Champions League Final in 2009 would not be good enough for Shamrock Rovers.
Write it in bold. Write it in red. Write it any way you want - it's still irrelevant waffle.
Get back to me when you have sourced the secret Thomas Davis plans for the stadium. That would be worth talking about.
QuoteWrite it in bold. Write it in red. Write it any way you want - it's still irrelevant waffle.
Get back to me when you have sourced the secret Thomas Davis plans for the stadium. That would be worth talking about.
Well at least i would give Dublin fella some credit for trying to pen a half decent reply but as for yourself hoop, yet more of the same slurry
QuoteIf Shamrock Rovers were moving into a stadium built to house athletics that line of argument would be relevent. Soccer fits in the middle of athletics stadia.
They arent. They are moving into a purpose built soccer ground. Gaelic games dont fit in the middle of soccer grounds.
And you are dealing with the Italian culture of building facilities for all sports based on demand, in that context soccer clubs sacrifice views for state of the art stadia in prime locations. No-one suing and no-one refusing to share.
Apples and oranges.
dublinfella, re your reply, you full well know that 10 or 20 pages back the argument you guys had was that the stadium would be destroyed for soccer by having it big enough to accomodate GAA matches. It was your relevant line of argument then. Now because a valid point has been made which rubbishes your argument, you change the goalposts. Not for the first time.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 07:54:49 PM
It was me you claimed was the 'Rovers fan abusing disabled children'? ??? No wonder you got lagged for being a random nutter. You really need a hug or something. Get over yourself, you went onto a closed forum for members of a club and stirred it up to play the victim when the inevitible happens. What did you prove? You can get barred. Someone give the monkey a banana.
Maybe you should have stated you were a Rovers fan. On a Rovers forum. Imagine. ::) Whatever next.
This forum is a generic forum for all GAA supporters. Some here are county players, some are club chairmen, some have never been to a game in their lives. You dont have the right to declare who is or isnt a 'fan' you arrogent tosser.
Now now, keep the bricks in your pocket, you're not in the pseudo hard man ultra forum now.
Some time ago you wrote this
QuoteI am a member of a club in the area and am furious that TD are willfully and publically setting out to kill another sporting organisation.
I take it that the club you say you are a member of is anything other than a GAA club. You have only one agenda with the GAA.
Quote from: blast05 on May 15, 2007, 11:02:00 PM
Well at least i would give Dublin fella some credit for trying to pen a half decent reply but as for yourself hoop, yet more of the same slurry
I replied at greater length quite a while ago. Just because you chose to ignore the replies and continue to tout your ludicrous comparison doesn't make it any more relevant.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 07:54:49 PM
[It was me you claimed was the 'Rovers fan abusing disabled children'? ??? No wonder you got lagged for being a random nutter. You really need a hug or something.
Here we go again with the spin. Why do you have inverted commas around disabled children, when I never mentioned children, I said people, in reference to your "rainman" comments.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 07:54:49 PM
This forum is a generic forum for all GAA supporters. Some here are county players, some are club chairmen, some have never been to a game in their lives. You dont have the right to declare who is or isnt a 'fan' you arrogent tosser.
Its not arrogance, its blatantly obvious!
Quote from: dublinfella on May 15, 2007, 07:54:49 PM
you arrogent tosser.
Mods, maybe time for a reminder, Dublinfella seems incapable of posting without an insult, getting out of hand.
Alright lads, this topic is causing nearly as much grief as the bloody Hillsborough/Munich/Heysel rubbish that seems to be (thankfully) eradicated from the LFC and MU threads.
Not a day goes by without someone posting something which triggers a 'reported post' and quite frankly I don't think we have the time to be moderating every post. (Maybe Dessie could swing something with the GPA??).
Anyway, if all this rubbish name calling continues, I think we will just lock this thread completely. It's going around in circles. Having said that I do not want that to happen, as there is the basis for an interesting debate on some of the issues around the stadium etc etc, which seems to have come in here.
With that in mind, I am willing to leave the thread open for the time being, but can you please return to normal, adult debate without the stupid personal insults. By all means attack the ideas, or the opinions but please refrain from comments which are personal insults.
Banning is a last resort on here, and will remain that way barring major indiscretions such as those mentioned in the pinned topic on this board.
Lock in, lock in, lock in! ;D
this is on hill16.ie. Sean Kelly continues to lower himself. The fact that hes come out against Thomas Davis convinces me all the more that they're doing the right thing.
Sean Kelly truly is an embarrassment to himself and the GAA. How he was ever let run the organisation is beyond me, and we should be thankful that he didn't completely run it into the ground (though he may have started off a chain reaction that could lead......god knows where)
QuoteStatement Dublin County Committee
The Dublin County Committee wish to record their continued support for the actions of Thomas Davis GAA club and its officials in relation to the Tallaght Stadium issue.
Officers of Thomas Davis have been striving hard behind the scenes to bring a satisfactory conclusion that respects all sports to the Tallaght Stadium issue. They have not breached GAA rules and no sanction is been contemplated against the club or its officials.
The views expressed by former GAA president Sean Kelly in his column in the Irish Examiner on Tuesday are his personal opinions only and do not represent the views of the GAA, are factually inaccurate in several respects and are neither supported nor endorsed by the Dublin County Committee.
John Costello
Secretary
Insteresting also was the distance the crowd were behind the goal in the new wembley, at least 25 feet.
to go off topic was anyone esle a bit disapointed with the new wembley.its looks good from the outside with the arch and what have you, but the inside lacked the wow factor i expected it to have.
i know its hard to tell on the telly but it all seemed a bit cramped. it did not come across as impressive a stadium as cardiff.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on May 23, 2007, 03:56:44 PM
this is on hill16.ie. Sean Kelly continues to lower himself. The fact that hes come out against Thomas Davis convinces me all the more that they're doing the right thing.
Sean Kelly truly is an embarrassment to himself and the GAA. How he was ever let run the organisation is beyond me, and we should be thankful that he didn't completely run it into the ground (though he may have started off a chain reaction that could lead......god knows where)
QuoteStatement Dublin County Committee
The Dublin County Committee wish to record their continued support for the actions of Thomas Davis GAA club and its officials in relation to the Tallaght Stadium issue.
Officers of Thomas Davis have been striving hard behind the scenes to bring a satisfactory conclusion that respects all sports to the Tallaght Stadium issue. They have not breached GAA rules and no sanction is been contemplated against the club or its officials.
The views expressed by former GAA president Sean Kelly in his column in the Irish Examiner on Tuesday are his personal opinions only and do not represent the views of the GAA, are factually inaccurate in several respects and are neither supported nor endorsed by the Dublin County Committee.
John Costello
Secretary
why is he 'lowering' himself? he is stating his opinion that TD are making a strategic mistake that has the potential to backfire on the GAA in general (Bear in mind if TD win, Pairc Ui Caoimh is a soccer ground as its on council land) and that TD clearly broke the GAA's rules with the politicisation of their campaign and personal attacks on two government ministers.
here is the article in the herald
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3848/seankellyintheheraldqd9.jpg (http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3848/seankellyintheheraldqd9.jpg)
note the story is from a GAA hack too. i have been telling you all along that TD have zero real support. between this well placed story (that had no relevence to anything going on on the day) and the fact that they cant find anyone to help pay for the case (€300k and ticking) is Croke Park finally stepping in and telling them to keep the noise down?
Not even the most ardent defender of this nuiscance suit can say the wheels arent coming off the whole thing.
Dublinfella
"Bear in mind if TD win, Pairc Ui Caoimh is a soccer ground as its on council land"
what are you on about? its no such thing... have you any facts right on any thread?
Quote from: magickingdom on May 23, 2007, 10:20:15 PM
Dublinfella
"Bear in mind if TD win, Pairc Ui Caoimh is a soccer ground as its on council land"
what are you on about? its no such thing... have you any facts right on any thread?
apparently the site the stadium is on is owned by the council, thats one of the reasons they bought flower lodge/pairc ui rinn.
by TD's definition of 'municipality' every sport in Cork is entitled to not just use it, but have it modified to suit them.
Phew, that was a close one .... well not really :P
Wtf am i on about ????
Just imagine if Shamrock Rovers had won the Eircom Premier division last year and won all their champions league pre-qualifiers and then topped their group and went all the way to the champions league final ...... well then they would have refused to take part in the final in Athens because there was too much space between the pitch and the stands ::)
Quote from: blast05 on May 23, 2007, 11:36:09 PM
Phew, that was a close one .... well not really :P
Wtf am i on about ????
Just imagine if Shamrock Rovers had won the Eircom Premier division last year and won all their champions league pre-qualifiers and then topped their group and went all the way to the champions league final ...... well then they would have refused to take part in the final in Athens because there was too much space between the pitch and the stands ::)
I must say you have spectacularly managed to miss the bigger picture here.
would you be so flippant if a soccer club was in the high court demanding a GAA venue be altered for them for free? because you can be sure that it will happen if TD win.
QuoteI must say you have spectacularly managed to miss the bigger picture here.
You'd make a great groundsman for the new stadium ..... cos you're able to change the goalposts so easily.
Quotewould you be so flippant if a soccer club was in the high court demanding a GAA venue be altered for them for free? because you can be sure that it will happen if TD win.
You're not comparing like with like and well you know it
keep up ML, they havent got the money to pay for their own costs so far, hence the latest delay. 300k and ticking
Putting money into a case to make the council include you is not the same as putting money into the stadium. you have oudone yourself with that logic.
Kelly is dead right here. The consequences of this are starting to dawn on key GAA figures and he was wheeled out for an arms length wrap on the knuckles to Kennedy.
Quoteapparently the site the stadium is on is owned by the council, thats one of the reasons they bought flower lodge/pairc ui rinn.
by TD's definition of 'municipality' every sport in Cork is entitled to not just use it, but have it modified to suit them.
where did you get that from... another bar stool. the gaa bought flower lodge off the fai cause the fai were dumb enough to sell it. should sound familiar to any rovers supporter.. ;D
Quote from: magickingdom on May 24, 2007, 01:40:13 PM
Quoteapparently the site the stadium is on is owned by the council, thats one of the reasons they bought flower lodge/pairc ui rinn.
by TD's definition of 'municipality' every sport in Cork is entitled to not just use it, but have it modified to suit them.
where did you get that from... another bar stool. the gaa bought flower lodge off the fai cause the fai were dumb enough to sell it. should sound familiar to any rovers supporter.. ;D
the FAI didnt own it (the FAI don't own any club ground), it was the ancient order of hibernians.....
dont let the facts get in the way of a bit of soccer bashing.
i checked this with a corkie, true apparently, one of the reasons it hasnt gotten a facelift in the last while
Quotethe FAI didnt own it (the FAI don't own any club ground), it was the ancient order of hibernians.....
well done the frrehold was owned by the aoh but the fai had the lease on it and let it go...
well done the frrehold was owned by the aoh but the fai had the lease on it and let it go...
Cork Hibs surely? What had the FAI got to do with it?
ML, its not the same logic, not even close. For you to say that TD running up a massive legal bill they cant pay and probably paying SDCC, the DoS and SRFC's legal bills is a 'contribution' to the stadium is bizarre, even for you.
Quotedont let the facts get in the way of a bit of soccer bashing
it was fai bashing not soccer bashing. love my soccer
QuoteCork Hibs surely? What had the FAI got to do with it?
sorry i'm so used to the gaa scene and everything been the one. cork hibs fcuk i'd forgotton about them...
Kelly is certainly doing the bidding of his now political paymaster, his fellow South Kerry knave O' Donoghue despite being a former failed Fine Gael local election candidate. He condemns 'officials at the club (Thomas Davis) of canvessing their members in order to influence their voting in Thursday's General Election'. He also rather strangely accuses Thomas Davis of 'blatent politicising of the controversy' which is somewhat ironic seeing as though it was a political decision in the first place. Afterall wasn't it you Sean who considered running in todays General Election as a Fine Gael candidate which prompted O' Donoghue to give you your cushy number in the first place. Your hypocracy sickens me.
Oh for the love of god, so here we go again. you're trying to count the old rovers contribution towards the building? and at the same time ignore their massive tax bill that they defaulted on. Also a lot of the builders didnt actually get paid by the old Rovers. This is gass, yor determination to go round in circles is commendable. impressive almost. This debate is utterly pointless as no one is conceeding even the simplest of points.
i've always been a big fan of sean kelly and i cant believe he got involved like this. he was talking bollix..
Quote from: tayto on May 24, 2007, 08:35:30 PM
Oh for the love of god, so here we go again. you're trying to count the old rovers contribution towards the building? and at the same time ignore their massive tax bill that they defaulted on. Also a lot of the builders didnt actually get paid by the old Rovers. This is gass, yor determination to go round in circles is commendable. impressive almost. This debate is utterly pointless as no one is conceeding even the simplest of points.
Im simply saying it is innaccurate to say they have contributed nothing, which was the line from certan quarters for a while.
Quote from: magickingdom on May 24, 2007, 08:53:27 PM
i've always been a big fan of sean kelly and i cant believe he got involved like this. he was talking bollix..
one way or the other its about time that the GAA upper echelons past or present stood up here. TD broke the rules and they should be censured, preferebaly in private, over it. CP should have thought through the potential ramifications long before this point. I'm not sure exactly what bit of the Kelly interview the DCB claim is innaccurate considering the two points he makes are both opinions.
Its interesting that another senior GAA/political figure, along with John Bailey, have been scorching in their condmenation of Kennedy and his adventures.
Interesting times, the GAA top brass seem to be splitting now the legal bill and potential backlash loom....
Both Liam Mulvihill and Nickey Brennan have come out in support of TD, DCB have also responded to SK article, refuted his claims and supported TD. Dublinfella how much in your estimation have SR actually put into this ground? and haven't the time now to go back through the all the threads but between the jigs n' reels it's not much more than 100k if even that, and that doesn't entitle them to sole use of the ground. It seems to me to be a 95% govt. funded sports ground and as such should be suited to all the major field sports of the area.
Quote
but if the major field sports dont fit...... kiddies and broads get to play there, so the GAA is being accommodated, just not to the level they want.
Quote
So if we agree that the govt. are paying for the vast majority of the ground then surely it is not unreasonable for TD/GAA to want a ground that is suitable for their primary games (i.e men's adult competitions). This discussion has gone around in circles at this stage but I'm afraid that nothing you have said Dublinfella convinces me that SR are deserving of such largess from the govt. and as such I think TD are right to challenge the actions of SDCC and the govt.
Quote from: darbyo on May 25, 2007, 11:18:50 AM
Quote
but if the major field sports dont fit...... kiddies and broads get to play there, so the GAA is being accommodated, just not to the level they want.Quote
So if we agree that the govt. are paying for the vast majority of the ground then surely it is not unreasonable for TD/GAA to want a ground that is suitable for their primary games (i.e men's adult competitions). This discussion has gone around in circles at this stage but I'm afraid that nothing you have said Dublinfella convinces me that SR are deserving of such largess from the govt. and as such I think TD are right to challenge the actions of SDCC and the govt.
but they arent challenging the state on that basis.... they are on a technical issue of planning, so all SDCC have to do if TD win is re-vote it soccer only.
i dont think even Rovers think they 'deserve' such a payout, but why is the attitude 'they got a great deal, lets stop them' rather than 'they got a great deal, lets try and get one ourselves'?
unfair =/= illegal.
Quoteunfair =/= illegal.
Dublinfella, nice to see you admitting that its not fair for the Govt & SDCC Council to gift a stadium to yourselves.
From the outset, I always saw this as an equality issue - why should the gaa be excluded from such an exceptional state giveaway?
If it was in the north, it would be illegal under equality laws.
'yourselves'?
i really doubt that this would be declared illegal seeing as TD rejected an offer of use of the facility already.
do you believe we have a right to rule 42?
Quotewe cant have a rule 42/44 (what made that move?) and go to the high court to demand inclusion in other sports facilities and not expect consequences. we groundshare or we dont. this is kellys point.
Dublinfella,
you can't have a rule 42/44, whatever, because you don't own the stadium you expect to be given.
Back to your previous point of
Quotenot fair=/= illegal
- you mightn't care because the end result suits you.
What if the GAA take the same approach in retaliation re the national soccer team playing at croker?
Would you join the gaa bashing brigade, you know, "the taxpayer gave a (small percentage - about 6%? ) grant to Croker, so anybody should be able to use it" brigade?
I've always thought that HQ were pathetic and weren't acting in the best interests of the GAA in not linking fair access to Tallaght with letting the FAI use croker. The latest comments of Sean Kelly adds to my discomfort as to why they didn't.
Quotegrow up ML. not all GAA grounds are owned by the GAA, Pairc Ui Caoimh being the biggest example. The FAI have made it clear that if TD win they will return the favour.
what are you on about? pairc ui caoimh is vested in the gaa, just like killarney (before you come out with that one). the grounds are controlled by trustee who must be gaa members..
Quote from: magickingdom on May 26, 2007, 09:12:40 PM
[. The FAI have made it clear that if TD win they will return the favour.
What the fcuk are you on about? The FAI are in no position to do anything?
I'm sure if the Government/any local Council build a free Stadium for any GAA unit we would only be too pleased to let local soccer clubs have use of it too.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 27, 2007, 08:23:54 PM
Quote from: magickingdom on May 26, 2007, 09:12:40 PM
[. The FAI have made it clear that if TD win they will return the favour.
What the fcuk are you on about? The FAI are in no position to do anything?
I'm sure if the Government/any local Council build a free Stadium for any GAA unit we would only be too pleased to let local soccer clubs have use of it too.
free stadium? still? ::)
Pearse stadium in Galway got a similar level of state funds as tallaght, dont see the soccer lads in there.....
Great election result for Rovers, FF back in, the only TD in the area who had sympathies for TD (Crowe) out on his arse and Lenehan topping the poll.
Looks like Kennedy's stalling backfired and he is left holding the bill.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 27, 2007, 08:56:23 PMPearse stadium in Galway got a similar level of state funds as tallaght, dont see the soccer lads in there.....
While I know I shouldn't bother, as this topic is going in circles, but I would be very surprised if Pearse Stadium in Galway got anywhere near a 90+% level in state funding?
Quote from: snatter on May 26, 2007, 09:51:59 AM
Quotewe cant have a rule 42/44 (what made that move?) and go to the high court to demand inclusion in other sports facilities and not expect consequences. we groundshare or we dont. this is kellys point.
Dublinfella,
you can't have a rule 42/44, whatever, because you don't own the stadium you expect to be given.
Back to your previous point of Quotenot fair=/= illegal
- you mightn't care because the end result suits you.
What if the GAA take the same approach in retaliation re the national soccer team playing at croker?
Would you join the gaa bashing brigade, you know, "the taxpayer gave a (small percentage - about 6%? ) grant to Croker, so anybody should be able to use it" brigade?
I've always thought that HQ were pathetic and weren't acting in the best interests of the GAA in not linking fair access to Tallaght with letting the FAI use croker. The latest comments of Sean Kelly adds to my discomfort as to why they didn't.
6%? more in the region of 40%. there was over €100m of public money handed over.
The GAA didnt link Tallaght to it because the FAI would have told them to f**k off. This case isnt as popular in the GAA as you might think. I'd be very surprised if it doesnt go away soon, especially seeing as there wont be the change in Govt stance on it and Kennedy has islolated the local TD's. Just a pity they didnt take the deal about money for Rathcoole while it was on the table.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 27, 2007, 10:06:17 PM
Quote from: snatter on May 26, 2007, 09:51:59 AM
Quotewe cant have a rule 42/44 (what made that move?) and go to the high court to demand inclusion in other sports facilities and not expect consequences. we groundshare or we dont. this is kellys point.
Dublinfella,
you can't have a rule 42/44, whatever, because you don't own the stadium you expect to be given.
Back to your previous point of Quotenot fair=/= illegal
- you mightn't care because the end result suits you.
What if the GAA take the same approach in retaliation re the national soccer team playing at croker?
Would you join the gaa bashing brigade, you know, "the taxpayer gave a (small percentage - about 6%? ) grant to Croker, so anybody should be able to use it" brigade?
I've always thought that HQ were pathetic and weren't acting in the best interests of the GAA in not linking fair access to Tallaght with letting the FAI use croker. The latest comments of Sean Kelly adds to my discomfort as to why they didn't.
6%? more in the region of 40%. there was over €100m of public money handed over.
The GAA didnt link Tallaght to it because the FAI would have told them to f**k off. This case isnt as popular in the GAA as you might think. I'd be very surprised if it doesnt go away soon, especially seeing as there wont be the change in Govt stance on it and Kennedy has islolated the local TD's. Just a pity they didnt take the deal about money for Rathcoole while it was on the table.
Dublinfella,
just for the record:
The total cost for the reconstruction of Croke Park was €260 million. Of this figure €110 million was contributed by the government.
However, only €19 million was from taxpayers money, the remainder came from lottery money.
To be totally accurate, the €19 million grant wasn't even directly for the for the GAA - it was provided to ensure the stadium was ready for the Special Olympics opening ceremony.
Now lets compare Croker's funding to that of Lansdowne Road.
Lansdowne is currently estimated to cost €345 million.
This project will receive €191 million in government aid
of which €127 million will be from taxpayers money.
It should be noted however that this is just an estimate and the total cost is likely to be much more with the extra funds coming from the taxpayer.
Now, Dublinfella, can you tell us how much the Tallaght project is likely to cost, and more importantly, how much of it will come from the public purse?
Remember to include the free site, giving an approximate market valuation if necessary.
Can you also outline just exactly how much Sham Rovers (in its current manifestation) are contributing?
For completeness, can you include the monies paid by the local council in having to reclaim public land back from Sham Rovers developers, to whom they had already gifted the land in the first place?
Oh, yes and then add the Govt, ie taxpayer's money to build the thing.
Once you've worked that out, you'll find that the level of taxpayers money given to you bunch of freeloaders at Tallaght will probably exceed that given to Croker! Unfuckingbelievable and totally perverse.
Can you then work out why we in the GAA community at large think we're getting shafted when it comes to public funding of stadium projects.
But, oh I forgot, you don't give a stuff about fairness as long as your beloved Sham Rovers get a free stadium for sweet fa.
if you think the GAA has been 'shafted' by the FF govt after taking €110m for CP alone, never mind some white elephants up and down the country with no strings attached we are on a different page altogether. what utter ingratitude.
the FAI/IRFU made their pitch and got their loot. the Tallaght stadium will see Rovers in there with more conditions on their tenency than any GAA club would tolerate. The state will actually own Tallght stadium, so to compare it to capital grants for GAA grounds is apples and oranges.
again, why werent the DCB into the Dept like a shot when those sorts of sweeties were being handed out? its a perverse way of approaching it. try and stop the other mob getting a damn thing rather than go in and get some for ourselves.
the fact that the GAA knocked back a matching offer for Rathcoole to pursue a 2,000 seater stadium that TD admitted they would never use is criminal
QuoteI believe in the order of 60% as a soccer ground
OK, lets take a huge leap and take your 60% figure as accurate ...... then show me an example of any GAA ground in the country that has got a similar level of exchequer funding.
...
...
...
Yes, you see, there are none.
So is it fair that soccer at Eircom League level - a sport that puts funds towards paying players rather than infrastructure - gets a higher percentage of exchequer funding towards facilities (Athlone Town, who own their ground having been given their site for free in addition to the huge amount of funding, as another major recent example) than a pair of sports codes that put all of their funds back into the game and holds a place in Irish culture and the Irish psyche that is far higher than any other sport ?
This is the key point. The fact that you are already using as a smokescreen to try and claim victory the possibility that TD may not having the financial muscle to follow up on their conviction is a bit pathetic.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 27, 2007, 11:52:40 PM
if you think the GAA has been 'shafted' by the FF govt after taking €110m for CP alone, never mind some white elephants up and down the country with no strings attached we are on a different page altogether. what utter ingratitude.
the FAI/IRFU made their pitch and got their loot. the Tallaght stadium will see Rovers in there with more conditions on their tenency than any GAA club would tolerate. The state will actually own Tallght stadium, so to compare it to capital grants for GAA grounds is apples and oranges.
again, why werent the DCB into the Dept like a shot when those sorts of sweeties were being handed out? its a perverse way of approaching it. try and stop the other mob getting a damn thing rather than go in and get some for ourselves.
the fact that the GAA knocked back a matching offer for Rathcoole to pursue a 2,000 seater stadium that TD admitted they would never use is criminal
So Dublinfella, you don't deny that
more taxpayer's money will probably end up being given to you freeloaders at Tallaght than was given to us at Croker?
Remember that the lottery was set up specifically to fund large sports projects exactly like Croker - its not Govt money like you shameless freeloading hypocritical beggars are getting.
And for the f**king MILLIONTH TIME - this isn't about excluding Sham Rovers from anything - its about the INCLUSION of the GAA in an almost wholly publicly funded stadium.
An also for the MILLIONTH f**king TIME - the GAA bought the land at Rathcoole. It's theirs to do with as they please because THEY OWN IT, ie PAID MONEY FOR IT.
Admittedly a strange concept for vermin like Sham Rovers to understand.
Totallly different form being GIVEN a free site and then getting a free stadium built on it.
Anyway, I think it is already established that DCB want to develop a training facility their.
Its not as well located as the public stadium at Tallaght.
DO YOU NOT GET IT? this is about about equality and fair play.
Are you so blinkered by your love of Sham Rovers not to able to see the difference?
Quote from: blast05 on May 28, 2007, 12:05:01 AM
QuoteI believe in the order of 60% as a soccer ground
OK, lets take a huge leap and take your 60% figure as accurate ...... then show me an example of any GAA ground in the country that has got a similar level of exchequer funding.
...
...
...
Yes, you see, there are none.
So is it fair that soccer at Eircom League level - a sport that puts funds towards paying players rather than infrastructure - gets a higher percentage of exchequer funding towards facilities (Athlone Town, who own their ground having been given their site for free in addition to the huge amount of funding, as another major recent example) than a pair of sports codes that put all of their funds back into the game and holds a place in Irish culture and the Irish psyche that is far higher than any other sport ?
This is the key point. The fact that you are already using as a smokescreen to try and claim victory the possibility that TD may not having the financial muscle to follow up on their conviction is a bit pathetic.
Pearse Stadium Galway got well over 60%.
I can think of hundreds of examples of GAA clubs taking free land from the state, Rathcoole is relevent to this. how much did the DCB pay for it?
The issue here is that the GAA cant involve itself in the grant system and then complain if someone else gets a percieved better deal., especially if the deal itself would be contary to GAA rules. Rovers have to share their stadium with other teams and sports to get it completed. Would the GAA allow that? No. Would you have accepted taxpayers money for CP with those strings attached?
What 'conviction' are they following up exactly? That time, effort and money could have been used to compete with Rovers either on coaching or infrastructure, rather than delaing the project in the vain hope Rovers would go bust and a new FG minister for sport would over-rule his department. And in the mean time every club in the area is at a disadvantage. Madness.
Dublinefella,
seriously, you're full of absolute shite.
How can you compare the GAA PAYING for Rathcoole, when Sham Rovers are being given both public land and public funding for a free stadium.
60% funding for Pearse stadium? MY ARSE! for starters how much did the land cost?
When you bought your house, did you buy just the bricks and mortar, or did you buy the site as well? (assuming you did actually buy your house, or did you get O'Donoghue to do that for you as well?)
The GAA has involved itself in this instance because there is a manifest unfairness and abuse of procedure within this particular grant allocation.
For the minister to intervene and ride roughshod over the councils public consultation and previous decision to include gaelic games is perverse.
The % funding given to this project is perverse when compared to others, especially when the attendances at county gaa grounds are so much higher than the souple of thousand scrotes that you guys get.
An btw, the only clubs genuinely at a disadvantage in the Tallaght area are the GAA ones who are being excluded from a public stadium built for free on their doorstep.
Quote from: snatter on May 28, 2007, 12:27:30 AM
Dublinefella,
seriously, you're full of absolute shite.
That's why I have given up on discusing anything with him, it is impossible to have a rational discussion based on facts, - the courts will decide
Quote from: snatter on May 28, 2007, 12:27:30 AM
Dublinefella,
seriously, you're full of absolute shite.
How can you compare the GAA PAYING for Rathcoole, when Sham Rovers are being given both public land and public funding for a free stadium.
60% funding for Pearse stadium? MY ARSE! for starters how much did the land cost?
When you bought your house, did you buy just the bricks and mortar, or did you buy the site as well? (assuming you did actually buy your house, or did you get O'Donoghue to do that for you as well?)
The GAA has involved itself in this instance because there is a manifest unfairness and abuse of procedure within this particular grant allocation.
For the minister to intervene and ride roughshod over the councils public consultation and previous decision to include gaelic games is perverse.
The % funding given to this project is perverse when compared to others, especially when the attendances at county gaa grounds are so much higher than the souple of thousand scrotes that you guys get.
An btw, the only clubs genuinely at a disadvantage in the Tallaght area are the GAA ones who are being excluded from a public stadium built for free on their doorstep.
a few facts
the GAA payed the exact same per acre Rovers did. But they are beggers etc? Ballyboden have recently sold land to developers given to them for free. odds on rathcoole will go the same way.
The council decided to allow Gaelic Games in contingent on funding remaining in place. They democratically overturned their second vote on the stadium 10 days later when this funding was withdrawn.
The GAA have rejected use of the stadium for the local youths as is and wont be asked again when its finished.
Just watching TV3 news review at the moment - they are reporting about Paul Stokes, the guy that drove his car into the entrance of the RTE studios. Hes was described as delusional in court. A similar analysis is all i can come up with when trying to figure your comments through this thread ::)
I'll leave it you snatter for now
Dublinfella,
Quoteexchequer funding for a 10,000 capacity stadium they will own approx €6m.
taxpayers bill for a 2,000 seater ground the local clubs wont use anyway approximatly €15m.
no doubt you will explain to me why the latter is a better investment
couple points here:
1. you're making a very belated, and very partial attempt to state the cost of building Tallaght.
€6m may have been agreed on a bankrupt project many years ago. Not a snowballs chance in hell of a restarted project completing it for anything close to that. Reliable estimates in Irish Times had it about €13m, taking into account all fees paid (including that paid by the council to get their own land back from previous incarnation of Sham Rovers thieving bankrupt beggars).
2. yet again, you ommit the cost of the freely gifted land in the first place. Even zoned as recreational land, it would have a value of several million euro.
3. the SDCC may be notional owners, but you bunch of freeloaders will be effective owners, lease guaranteed prime use of a facility purpose built for yourselves.
4. and THIS IS A KEY POINT - after spending tens of millions on a facility for you beggars, why should the public even have to consider building any other facility just for the GAA down the road. Any moron with a grasp of economics could see that it makes more sense to build one truly municipal facility for both GAA and soccer.
1: the delays and therefore cost increases are down to one source and one source only. a clique in TD CLG.
2: the site wasnt actually free. however, numerous GAA clubs, including TD have taken cheap/free land off the state. so its ok for the GAA but an outrage if its the FAI?
3: 'you bunch'? again, its ok if TD get in for literally free but an outrage if Rovers get in for some contribution?
4: any moron with a ruler can tell you this is simply about feasability. a senior GAA pitch does not fit on a soccer one. to do so would reduce the capacity to a point that its useless and economically unviable. TD tried and failed to turn this into an election issue contriving some conspiracy against the GAA. there isnt one. they had a look and it didnt work. get over it.
all this beggars and freeloader nonsense points to an anti-soccer agenda as opposed to any rational look at whether groundsharing between the GAA and others is feasable and or desiarable. in this case it isnt. all the rest is bluster.
Dublinfella,
>> 1. you're making a very belated, and very partial attempt to state the cost of building Tallaght.
>> €6m may have been agreed on a bankrupt project many years ago. Not a snowballs chance in hell of a restarted project
>> completing it for anything close to that. Reliable estimates in Irish Times had it about €13m, taking into account all fees paid
>> (including that paid by the council to get their own land back from previous incarnation of Sham Rovers thieving bankrupt
>> beggars).
>>>> 1: the delays and therefore cost increases are down to one source and one source only. a clique in TD CLG.
You're having a laugh - the delays here are due to thieving, inept, serial moral and financial bankrupts going bust, taking public funding with them, forcing the SDCC to buy back land they already owned, etc , etc.
>> 2. yet again, you ommit the cost of the freely gifted land in the first place. Even zoned as recreational land, it would have a value >> of several million euro.
>>>> 2: the site wasnt actually free. however, numerous GAA clubs, including TD have taken cheap/free land off the state. so its ok >>>> for the GAA but an outrage if its the FAI?
Name one GAA unit that have had a free site and a free 10k stadium.
Are we seriously expected to accept Athlone Town and yourselves getting these free deals while we sink millions of our own money into catering for much bigger crowds at our grounds.
>>3. the SDCC may be notional owners, but you bunch of freeloaders will be effective owners, lease guaranteed prime use of a
>>facility purpose built for yourselves.
>>>>3: 'you bunch'? again, its ok if TD get in for literally free but an outrage if Rovers get in for some contribution?
Nobody here in GAA land is suggesting anything other than fair equitable treatment for both Sham Rovers and Dublin GAA. Both units should pay the same contribution and have equal access rights.
Anything less than equitable treatment will be an outrage.
>> 4. and THIS IS A KEY POINT - after spending tens of millions on a facility for you beggars, why should the public even have to
>> consider building any other facility just for the GAA down the road. Any moron with a grasp of economics could see that it makes
>> more sense to build one truly municipal facility for both GAA and soccer.
>>>> 4: any moron with a ruler can tell you this is simply about feasability. a senior GAA pitch does not fit on a soccer one. to do so >>>> would reduce the capacity to a point that its useless and economically unviable. TD tried and failed to turn this into an election >>>> issue contriving some conspiracy against the GAA. there isnt one. they had a look and it didnt work. get over it.
Ah, but a soccer pitch does fit into a GAA one - can you think of an obvious solution here? Can our moron work it out?
1: Snatter. If it wasnt for TD's intervention the stadium would be finished and Rovers and the local GAA would be using it. Even you cant deny that.
2: Free lamd? Rathcoole. Ballyboden (now appartments). Thats just within a few miles of Tallaght. Similar funding %? Pearse Stadium. Your point would be far stronger if TD were putting anything into this rather than shortcutting all the work you claim the GAA does to get its infrastructure up.
3: Agreed, but the DCB seem not to be on message there.
4: Irrelevant and well you know it. If the site were big enough for a GAA pitch and a viable stadium there wouldnt be this discussion. It isn't, and turning this into a political battle has spectacularly backfired on the GAA. Even if they win the case, it will be totally phyricc as the SDCC will just re-vote and TD are left holding a legal bill for millions. And nothing in Rathcoole. Brilliant strategic vision from the DCB. Unless this is about the 'last man standing' and trying to screw Rovers with delays, in which case, they failed too.
dublinfella, heres a good album for you to check out
(http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0000073PP.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
Quote from: dublinfella on May 28, 2007, 12:23:04 AM
Shamrock Rovers and the DCB paid the same for their respective sites.
.
Ah for fcuk sake - -Shamrock Beggars GOT €1.5 or €1.9 m from Govt, a FREE site from the Council,€1.5m from the Council to "give" back the free site.
Now the Council/Govt propose to build SR a FREE Stadium.
Dublin County Board paid yes PAID (a foreign concept to scummy soccer) for land they BOUGHT (a foreign concept...) off the local Council to which there is no access as the Council cant get to build a Road to service the lands(something about an adjoining proposed halting site) as local residents/Councillors are opposing it.
So the DCB will either have to invest in a few Chinooks to get players/supporters etc in to the land they BOUGHT(a foreign concept....)
Ya just couldnt make it up.
If I was TD I waould be going to Court seeking an Order to compel the Comptroller/Auditor General to investigate the whole saga and waste of public money.
Quote from: Rossfan on May 28, 2007, 06:09:19 PM
So the DCB will either have to invest in a few Chinooks to get players/supporters etc in to the land they BOUGHT(a foreign concept....)
:D
Sweet f**k, its been a week or so since I logged on but when I read the last few pages I though my flux capacitor had brought be back in time to page 5 or 6 to hear Dublinfella repeating the same old shite.
67 pages, your pals at the Ultras who planted you here must be very proud of the time you have dedicated on here.
Lads hows about a banner for the Hill on sunday "Dublinfella, f**k off and die" ;D
But of course we are a classier bunch than that ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on May 28, 2007, 06:09:19 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on May 28, 2007, 12:23:04 AM
Shamrock Rovers and the DCB paid the same for their respective sites.
.
Ah for fcuk sake - -Shamrock Beggars GOT €1.5 or €1.9 m from Govt, a FREE site from the Council,€1.5m from the Council to "give" back the free site.
Now the Council/Govt propose to build SR a FREE Stadium.
Dublin County Board paid yes PAID (a foreign concept to scummy soccer) for land they BOUGHT (a foreign concept...) off the local Council to which there is no access as the Council cant get to build a Road to service the lands(something about an adjoining proposed halting site) as local residents/Councillors are opposing it.
So the DCB will either have to invest in a few Chinooks to get players/supporters etc in to the land they BOUGHT(a foreign concept....)
Ya just couldnt make it up.
If I was TD I waould be going to Court seeking an Order to compel the Comptroller/Auditor General to investigate the whole saga and waste of public money.
waste of public money? the DCB have been sitting on the site they got for £1 an acre 12 years ago. glass houses and all that. and as for Ballyboden.... but I forgot, the rules are different when its soccer clubs. ::) [Edited by Moderator3] the council will not pay for an access road (DCB beggars) till they get some idea what the DCB plan on doing with the land. how unreasonable!!
blaming travellers for this mess? get to f**k. bigoted as well as wrong.
profound ignorance.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 29, 2007, 12:18:46 AM
waste of public money? the DCB have been sitting on the site they got for £1 an acre 12 years ago. glass houses and all that. and as for Ballyboden.... but I forgot, the rules are different when its soccer clubs. ::) [Edited by Moderator 3]
after a comment like this, I think its time to put an end to this thread.
Dublinfella,
Your last post on this topic contained very serious allegations, which are probably libel. I have no interest in defending this website in a lawsuit because of comments you, or anybody else makes, so I have edited and removed the offending piece of the post.
I am reluctant to lock the thread, because it would probably re-emerge again in another topic, but can everyone just take a moment and ask themselves 'What is the point?'. This is going around in circles and the only new stuff is the various insults being bandied about.
awww what he say?the lying and making stuff up finally went too far eh? was only a matter of time. had given up on this thread a long time ago.
Quote from: Gaaboardmod3 on May 29, 2007, 09:47:43 AM
Dublinfella,
Your last post on this topic contained very serious allegations, which are probably libel. I have no interest in defending this website in a lawsuit because of comments you, or anybody else makes, so I have edited and removed the offending piece of the post.
Just to be clear, its ok to claim that all the TD's in Tallaght who support Rovers are corrupt, its ok to call Shamrock Rovers all sorts and alledge criminal activity in relation to their deal with the SDCC, its ok to blame the travellers for the delay in the Rathcool project but its not ok to state the facts in relation to a property play by a club in the area that are in the public domain and reported in the press already.
Just for clarity about whats acceptible and all that. ???
No need to get smart dublinfella. Your last post laid a serious allegation about a criminal act against a GAA club. The post was reported, and I agreed that it was a dangerous thing to leave on the board.
If you have issues about other posts, please report them, so that the moderators can act if we feel necessary. We do not have the time or energy to scroll down every thread, and you would want the patience of Job to go through this one.
I have tried to be fair in this stilly tit-for-tat battle you are having, and have asked people to refrain from insults etc. I haven't looked since, but I have not had any reported posts either.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 29, 2007, 12:18:46 AM
waste of public money? the DCB have been sitting on the site they got for £1 an acre 12 years ago.
More lies from this eejit. The land consists of 26 acres and the price was approx IR250,000 - for landlocked fields in the middle of the country side. £1 an acre???? - what a lying ********
This is why I keep looking at this thread. You don't want to miss it if something happens and it looks like It did happen and I missed It. Darn.
If you haven't read thread for a while, you don't have read back on the previous posts. It goes around in circles very fast and repeats itself with little variation. Just wait for the wagons to whoosh past on yet another lap.
;D
Good to see the results on the field are going in the right direction anyway.
dublinfella where were you last night? todays indo wants to know where the fans were for the cork game last night? even offered fee admin to dublin taxi drivers and they didnt go ffs...
where was I last night? balls deep in yer ma! ;D
finish the quote.... the indo commented that the crowd was low (2,000 on a tuesday v a rural club isnt all that bad) and that this showed how imperitive it was they get into Tallaght soon. If you are going to be a smartarse, finish the point the journo was making, not put words in his mouth! It was a thinly veiled dig at the GAA>
Classy guy. I suppose you'll have that on a banner behind the goals at the next game.
Quote from: dublinfella on May 30, 2007, 03:57:42 PMwhere was I last night? balls deep in yer ma! ;D
And the mask slips further ::)
Quote from: Hardy on May 30, 2007, 04:08:05 PM
Classy guy. I suppose you'll have that on a banner behind the goals at the next game.
its a good line alright. ;D like i have to account for my personal movements on here. ::)
you still havent grasped what that banner was about. kennedy was in the local papers claiming the Rovers fans were behind him. so they told him what they thought of him. not a nice incident, but why are you angered by that reaction and not the 'last man standing' email?
an officer of a gaa club states his intention to kill a club and you support him, a group of fans hold up a banner and you go ballistic. bizarre.
Don't lecture me on lack of grasp. What is clear to all here is that you and your friends in "Shamrock Rovers Ultras" have no grasp of basic decent behaviour. Your language and attitiude in the last few posts just confirm what we knew. That's not to mention your grasp of numbers, finance and the basic concepts of property ownership versus freeloading.
And I'm out of here. Whatever your response, consider yourself to have had the last word. 68 pages is way too long to spend even in the rough vicinity of people I'd cross the street to avoid if I saw and heard them coming with their obscene banners and nasty language.
dublinfella, im not even going to repeat you quote down here. your beneath contempt.
here here ... door hits arse on way out
Quote from: dublinfella on May 30, 2007, 03:57:42 PM
where was I last night? balls deep in yer ma! ;D
finish the quote.... the indo commented that the crowd was low (2,000 on a tuesday v a rural club isnt all that bad) and that this showed how imperitive it was they get into Tallaght soon. If you are going to be a smartarse, finish the point the journo was making, not put words in his mouth! It was a thinly veiled dig at the GAA>
fair play to you ,keep it up,they can't deal with you..your on your own and wiping the floor with them but what else do you expect when these people support a game where two teams can't even walk onto a pitch and avoid fighting each other,what a joke.Theres not even a word about it on this website.sweep it under the carpet.pack of degenerates the lot of them.
Quote from: Hardy on May 30, 2007, 05:37:38 PM
with their obscene banners and nasty language.
;D ;D ;D
magnificent.
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3f/200px-FATHER_TED_Down_with_this_sort_of_thing.jpg)
Jesus some of you are priceless in what you decide to get angry about.
Alright lads, 69 pages or whatever is long enough for this topic, especially as we seem to recycle after every 4 or 5 pages or so. As we seem to embarking on a new spiral of name calling and regurgitating the same stuff again and again, I think it is time to blow the long whistle on it, especially as this thread is the source of at least 60% of reported posts on its own.
Feel free to open another thread about the subject when something happens in the courts or whatever.Any issues with me locking this thread, please PM me.
Thanks
Mod 3