gaaboard.com

O'Donoghue lashes out over Thomas Davis appeal
16 March 2007

Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism John O'Donoghue has launched an amazing broadside at the GAA over Thomas Davis' court action to allow Gaelic games to be played in the Tallaght Stadium at a time when he says they have "outright opposition to soccer being played in their own grounds."

O'Donoghue issued a press release following a report in today's Irish Star which claimed that the government had given €19m directly to the redevelopment of Croke Park.

In it he outlined all the money given to the GAA since 1998, which he believed to be over €285m.

"I am surprised and somewhat disappointed by the misleading and inaccurate statements being given to the media by some GAA sources on the level of Government Support for the GAA as reported in today's Irish Star newspaper," blasted O'Donoghue.

"It is time that the facts were put on the record. For instance, the Government has allocated almost, €114 million towards the redevelopment of Croke Park, which is considerably more than the, €19 million, being portrayed as fact by these anonymous sources within the organisation.

"The fact is that since 1998 alone, this Government has provided over, €268.5 million towards the development of facilities for all levels of gaelic games in cities, towns and parishes throughout the country. This funding has been warmly welcomed by hard-working GAA people as being of enormous benefit in supporting the fund raising and voluntary effort locally to provide much needed, high quality facilities for gaelic games in every corner of the country.

"And our support is not confined to facilities alone. Between 2001 and 2006 the Government provided special funding of almost, €13 million to assist the GAA in increasing participation at underage level, supporting the development of hurling in non-traditional areas and helping the Dublin County Board in its efforts in promoting gaelic games."

O'Donoghue then goes on to hit out at Thomas Davis' court action which has held up development work at the stadium, which he has stated must be only used for soccer and cannot be a multi-sport facility.

"In view of this unprecedented level of Government financial support for the GAA and the spirit of fairness and generosity, which should characterise sport in all its forms, it is a source of great disappointment to all genuine sports people that the stadium in Tallaght is being delayed by the action being taken by a GAA club."

The Minister saves his most damning statement for last when he blasts the association for trying to get gaelic games played at Tallaght Stadium, which he terms a soccer ground, despite the fact that Shamrock Rovers sold the ground to Dublin County Council.

"I also find it quite extraordinary that the GAA should wish to play gaelic games in a soccer ground given their outright opposition to soccer being played in their own grounds," said O'Donoghue.

Given the fact that the Irish soccer side is set to play their first game in Croke Park on March 24, there will be huge disappointment in many GAA circles at the tone of O'Donoghue's outburst.

******************************************************************************

Now, where do I begin??

* firstly that most of the money the government have 'given' out is Lotto money and so is not actually government money
* the government don't direclty supply any facilities to the public for sport so must give money to sports organisations to cover their inadequacies in this regard
*

Quotethe GAA should wish to play gaelic games in a soccer ground given their outright opposition to soccer being played in their own grounds

I thought Tallaght was owned by Dublin County Council and not any soccer club/authorities??

The list goes on...

Any chance that the voters of Kerry would get rid of this eejit.

Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2007, 05:58:10 PM
Any chance that the voters of Kerry would get rid of this eejit.

so he isnt entitled to a reply when someone in the GAA feeds a (wrong) line to the star understating our help from the state?

bear in mind a GAA club is taking his department to court today, its hardly a surprise the GAA arent his favourite organisation today.

according to the rovers fans on foot.ie, they day went very well for them. the TD barrister talked for 40 mins about Irish language and culture and how a soccer club would 'threaten' this before the judge told him to stop the waffle and get to the legal point. the entire case hinges on whether SDCC are entitled to re-vote on an issue after an original descision was queried by a minister. all parties agreed this is the substantive, with SDCC and SRFC arguing they can. TD have to prove this second look is in fact illegal to get their review, and its hard to see how they can do so.

Quote from: neilthemac on March 16, 2007, 05:46:27 PM

* the government don't direclty supply any facilities to the public for sport so must give money to sports organisations to cover their inadequacies in this regard

not true, there are dozens of municipal swimming pools, gyms, golf courses, athletics tracks, nevermind council pitches (and one soccer ground Waterford United play in), directly ran and paid for by local authorities up and down the country.

Problem is the Tallaght facility is intended to be given over to Shamrock Rovers again when the Stadium is built as opposed to being run by the Council for use by the public who pay as they use swimming pools,golf courses etc.

Quotethere are dozens of municipal swimming pools, gyms, golf courses, athletics tracks, nevermind council pitches (and one soccer ground Waterford United play in), directly ran and paid for by local authorities up and down the country.

mainly run by county councils, who are not the government.

There's a election coming up soon. Do use a favour, vote him out.

Quote from: neilthemac on March 16, 2007, 08:24:53 PM

Quotethere are dozens of municipal swimming pools, gyms, golf courses, athletics tracks, nevermind council pitches (and one soccer ground Waterford United play in), directly ran and paid for by local authorities up and down the country.

mainly run by county councils, who are not the government.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 16, 2007, 08:16:38 PM
Problem is the Tallaght facility is intended to be given over to Shamrock Rovers again when the Stadium is built as opposed to being run by the Council for use by the public who pay as they use swimming pools,golf courses etc.

not true. the facility will be run as a municipal soccer ground by the SDCC with Rovers as revenue generating anchor tenents. the rest of the time the ground will be used for schools finals, underage internationals etc. this is basic stuff lads, and TD arent disputing this

the original article that offended JO'D.

Davis have day in Court

Peter Sweeney

The Star - 16.03.07

Dublin's Thomas Davis GAA club have their day in court today as they seek a judicial review of the Government's decision to keep Gaelic Games out of Tallaght Stadium. Davis are seeking to challenge the Government ruling that makes the stadium soccer-only and to do this they must first win today's case at the High Court.

League of Ireland side Shamrock Rovers began to develop Tallaght Stadium and sunk in the region of €2 million into the building work before the cash dried up. It remained a building site for several years before preliminary talks involving both the GAA and Rovers appeared to open the way for football and hurling to be played at the ground.

However, Minister for Sport John O'Donoghue then decided that Tallaght Stadium would be kept for only soccer as it would cost too much and take too long to make the changes that would allow Gaelic Games in.

"We are taking this case against South Dublin County Council (SDCC), not Shamrock Rovers," said Thomas Davis spokesman David Kennedy earlier this year. "We are at pains to point out that we respect their priority use of the stadium as anchor tenants. "We have applied for a judicial review in order for the case to be heard - it has been the Minister for Sport and the SDCC who have delayed us getting into court.

"We want SDCC to go back to the original decision of December 12 2005, which was to develop the stadium as a multi-purpose facility - for soccer, Gaelic Games, rugby and whoever else wants to use it. "Lengthening the ground would not compromise the capacity of the stadium, contrary to what some people have claimed," added Kennedy.

At central level the GAA are remaining in the background in this case, but they back Thomas Davis's stance. They argue that €191m of Government money is being given to Lansdowne Road - a stadium that was originally supposed to accommodate Gaelic Games, but under current proposals
no longer will.

The GAA received €190 million in grants for the development of Croke Park, but only €19 million of that came direct from the Government and that was linked to the hosting of the 2004 Special Olympics.

THE war of words has intensified between the GAA and Sport Minister John O'Donoghue over how exactly the redevelopment of Croke Park was cash aided.

Mr O'Donoghue yesterday launched a scathing attack on the sporting association, accusing it of making "misleading statements" regarding the level of government funding for the project.

He said the Government had allocated €114m towards the redevelopment - far more than the €19m claimed by GAA sources. However, last night GAA spokesperson Danny Lynch accused Mr O'Donoghue of being "disingenuous" and pointed out that the vast bulk of the €114m actually came from the National Lottery.

"The minister is continuously referring to the taxpayers' money that went into Croke Park but, other than than €19m for the Special Olympics, the money that went into it was Lotto money. To suggest it was taxpayers' money is a bit disingenuous." He pointed out that raising money for sporting and other activities was the raison d'etre for the National Lottery when it was set up 20 years ago.

Mr Lynch said the minister's comments would "peeve some people off" considering the huge tourism revenues the GAA had generated for the State through the opening of the historic grounds to rugby in recent weeks and soccer in the coming weeks.

Earlier Mr O'Donoghue said: "I am disappointed by the misleading statements being given by GAA sources on the level of government support for the GAA.

"The Government has allocated almost €114m towards the redevelopment of Croke Park, which is considerably more than the €19m being portrayed as fact by these anonymous sources."

Mr O'Donoghue reiterated his criticism of the GAA over the court action being taken by Dublin GAA club Thomas Davis to allow gaelic games be played in the Tallaght Stadium, which is being earmarked for Eircom Premier League club Shamrock Rovers.

In recent weeks, GAA President Nicky Brennan has called for gaelic games to be allowed into the stadium in Tallaght on the basis that the doors of Croke Park are being opened to the FAI. soccer for the forthcoming Irish international matches with Wales and Slovakia.

The High Court heard that South Dublin County Council was told by Mr O'Donoghue that he would only provide funding for a soccer stadium.

Mr Lynch said South Dublin County Council had originally decided that the stadium by a multi-sport facility but that the Minister has essentially excluded the GAA from Tallaght.

Mr Lynch said the GAA did not want any special treatment, but when major new sporting developments were being built exclusively with Government funding on publicly-owned land, other sports should get a look in.

*******************

fair play Danny Lynch - telling it like it is

I think O'Donoghue has just scuppered any chance of soccer or rugby at Croker in 2009.
What a prat.

And btw, isn't a soccer pitch just a pitch that hasn't been built big enough for GAA?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 16, 2007, 06:04:26 PM
so he isnt entitled to a reply when someone in the GAA feeds a (wrong) line to the star understating our help from the state?

That's right DF 'our' ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Bogball XV on March 17, 2007, 10:51:19 AM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 16, 2007, 06:04:26 PM
so he isnt entitled to a reply when someone in the GAA feeds a (wrong) line to the star understating our help from the state?

That's right DF 'our' ;D ;D ;D

Our our our.  Dublinfella is often concerned with saying such things to sell himself as a gaa man on here  ::)
I dont know who he thinks he's fooling.

dublinfella, correct me if i'm wrong on any of this. rovers are a professional soccer club, not in public ownership, who a no. of years ago sold their home to a developer and now what to be given a free facility to continue on running a professional club from it. none of the other banana republic on this planet would put up with that crap. athlone town were just handed a stadium after twenty five years of unbelievable incompetence.....

Quote from: magickingdom on March 17, 2007, 12:34:10 PM
dublinfella, correct me if i'm wrong on any of this. rovers are a professional soccer club, not in public ownership, who a no. of years ago sold their home to a developer and now what to be given a free facility to continue on running a professional club from it. none of the other banana republic on this planet would put up with that crap. athlone town were just handed a stadium after twenty five years of unbelievable incompetence.....

What's more Sham Rovers were given a FREE site(the same one) by the local Council about 9 years ago to build a  Stadium but of course they had no money and when the Grant ran out everything stopped .
What a pathetic shower of crappy wasters.
As for O'Donoghue - he's not very politically adept is he? esp in Election year.
Seems he has a"plan" that there is to be 2 Soccer stadia in Dublin -one North for Shelbourne/Bohemians and one South for Shams/St Pats.
Of course St Pat's having a local identity and tradition in the West Dublin area dont want to have anything to do with this "plan" so why does he persist.
Surely any politician with an ounce of savvy should invite all parties to sit around the table with him and hammer out a deal to keep them all onside?
As for Athlone -with the "crowds" they get sure an oul' field along the Shannon would be sufficient  - or rent the Buccaneers place.

Quote from: magickingdom on March 17, 2007, 12:34:10 PM
dublinfella, correct me if i'm wrong on any of this. rovers are a professional soccer club, not in public ownership, who a no. of years ago sold their home to a developer and now what to be given a free facility to continue on running a professional club from it. none of the other banana republic on this planet would put up with that crap. athlone town were just handed a stadium after twenty five years of unbelievable incompetence.....

Are we still persisting with this innaccurate line that Rovers, and now Athlone, are getting 'free' stadia? Its just patently innaccurate. All the indignation seems to stem from this incorrect premise. And from the same people who get hot and bothered when its suggested that CP was funded by the state.

I'm not defending shamrock rovers, but to suggest the club itself sold milltown is a bizarre interpretation of the whole KRAM events.

What you are saying magick is that when a GAA club draw down lotto funding its all right and proper, but when athlone town do it they are getting 'handed a stadium'? Its this hypocricy that drives me nuts. quid pro quo on CP opening is not the GAA going to court to get free access to soccer stadiums.

The reality is after all that TD have gone into the high court with a piss weak argument, that the council cant change their mind, despite the fact that the decision to put gaelic games in the stadium was in fact, the council changing its mind. moral arguments aside, its a collosal waste of money and a clear blocking move. which leads to the next question of who is paying for this and why arent they bringing the case?

Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2007, 01:30:09 PM

As for O'Donoghue - he's not very politically adept is he? esp in Election year.

this is interesting. all the politicians in tallaght  have been very vocal in their support of Rovers on this. none have come out and supported TD or the GAA. These guys know their constituancy. What exactly makes you think JO'D or the others will lose votes on this line of action? Voters in Kerry dont give two fucks that he has stuck to his guns on providing a soccer ground in west dublin.

methinks this is the real anger on the site. the gaa doesnt have the political clout of old. not even enough to muscle a kerry minister for finance on a small project anymore. no-one outside the GAA family supports TD on this whereas 25 years ago they would.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2007, 01:40:06 PM
,
Are we still persisting with this innaccurate line that Rovers, and now Athlone, are getting 'free' stadia? .

Not sure about Athlone but Shams ARE to get a stadium built by the Government through the local Council.
Normally when Sports clubs/organisations get lotto grants they have to put up at least 25% of the funds themselves. But this failed professional/commercial outfit Shamrock Rovers seem to be exempt from that.
WHY ?
and "Dublin"fella -what is your agenda,what GAA club  ::)do you belong to?

Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2007, 01:51:50 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2007, 01:40:06 PM
,
Are we still persisting with this innaccurate line that Rovers, and now Athlone, are getting 'free' stadia? .

Not sure about Athlone but Shams ARE to get a stadium built by the Government through the local Council.
Normally when Sports clubs/organisations get lotto grants they have to put up at least 25% of the funds themselves. But this failed professional/commercial outfit Shamrock Rovers seem to be exempt from that.
WHY ?
and "Dublin"fella -what is your agenda,what GAA club  ::)do you belong to?

Read the second paragraph of the article from the stars GAA correspondant that was a TD puff piece. SRFC have put €2m in. That SRFC put a sizeable chunk in is not being denied even by TD, although i believe they queried the amount. can people stop with the 'free' stadium nonsense

Im not naming the club I play/volunteer in, but its near to all this. My 'agenda' is two fold. It was clear from day 1 that TD had no legally valid case. While i think rovers have done very well in this, its not really our place to kick up. its clearly a blocking move and it infuriates me that TD feel that the best way to confront the threat of rovers youth setup is to use the law to keep them out. we need more confidence in the strength of our games to attract players, not hide from the challenge.

secondly, td have declared that they arent looking to get this for themselves, but to create a southside parnell park. this has been rumbling for years with a site located in rathcoole, pearse park atc. the dcb should get off their holes and build this bloody thing, not magpie into a soccer ground through TD in court. im sick of being fobbed off by the DCB about a suitable southside venue, and this most certainly isnt it. 2,000 seats? useless.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2007, 02:09:23 PM
[outfit Shamrock Rovers seem to be exempt from that.

. SRFC have put €2m in. .

PLEASE STOP PEDDLING UNTRUTHS - SHAMROCK ROVERS PUT EXACTLY NOTHING IN FOR **** SAKE.
They get the builder to do €2.3m worth of work - and then got grant of IR£ 1.5m(€1.9m).
The Council had to pay the Builder the other €400k.

REPEAT AFTER ME SHAM ROVERS PUT NOTHING INTO THE THING.

dublinfella, you aint quite right with a lot of your points

"Are we still persisting with this innaccurate line that Rovers, and now Athlone, are getting 'free' stadia? Its just patently innaccurate. All the indignation seems to stem from this incorrect premise"

how is it inaccurate?

"I'm not defending shamrock rovers, but to suggest the club itself sold milltown is a bizarre interpretation of the whole KRAM events"

did the owners of the club not sell the ground

"What you are saying magick is that when a GAA club draw down lotto funding its all right and proper, but when athlone town do it they are getting 'handed a stadium'? Its this hypocricy that drives me nuts."

my point is these are PROFESSIONAL clubs. a business if you want to be precise. i have no problem with lotto money or gov money going to amature soccer clubs

"quid pro quo on CP opening is not the GAA going to court to get free access to soccer stadiums. "

its not a soccer stadium. the gaa are actually trying to SHARE the stadium. i'm delighted cp is open.


"minister for finance"

hes not minister for finance

Quote from: dublinfella on March 16, 2007, 06:07:18 PM
not true, there are dozens of municipal swimming pools, gyms, golf courses, athletics tracks, nevermind council pitches (and one soccer ground Waterford United play in), directly ran and paid for by local authorities up and down the country.

Note that the 'S' in RSC stands for 'Sports', not 'Soccer'. It's a multi-sports facility.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 16, 2007, 06:04:26 PM
according to the rovers fans on foot.ie, they day went very well for them. the TD barrister talked for 40 mins about Irish language and culture and how a soccer club would 'threaten' this before the judge told him to stop the waffle and get to the legal point. the entire case hinges on whether SDCC are entitled to re-vote on an issue after an original descision was queried by a minister. all parties agreed this is the substantive, with SDCC and SRFC arguing they can. TD have to prove this second look is in fact illegal to get their review, and its hard to see how they can do so.

This person wouldn't be related to the person who told you the GAA were going to be broadcasting videos of hurling and gaelic football at half-time in the rugby internationals at Croke Park, would they?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2007, 01:40:06 PM
Are we still persisting with this innaccurate line that Rovers, and now Athlone, are getting 'free' stadia? Its just patently innaccurate. All the indignation seems to stem from this incorrect premise. And from the same people who get hot and bothered when its suggested that CP was funded by the state.

It's not free, right enough. But they've received two-thirds funding and had their tax bill written off. If the IDA gave that kind of money to a failed business, there'd be Dáil Select Committees, outraged editorials, demands for a head, laughing stock of Europe etc.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2007, 03:32:52 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2007, 02:09:23 PM
[outfit Shamrock Rovers seem to be exempt from that.

. SRFC have put €2m in. .

PLEASE STOP PEDDLING UNTRUTHS - SHAMROCK ROVERS PUT EXACTLY NOTHING IN FOR **** SAKE.
They get the builder to do €2.3m worth of work - and then got grant of IR£ 1.5m(€1.9m).
The Council had to pay the Builder the other €400k.

REPEAT AFTER ME SHAM ROVERS PUT NOTHING INTO THE THING.

you are just plain wrong on that. there is no simpler way to say it. even TD on court on friday stated that SRFC had put money in. they just disputed the amount.

the council have payed nothing yet. because TD are taking an injunctrion. again, any reading of the stories in the papers on this and you would be clear on that.

we need the actual facts of the situation out there, and with respect Rossfan, you arent helping.

 Indo - 17.03.07
GAA club in High Court bid to play on soccer grounds

A GAA club in south County Dublin has gone to the High Court in a row over whether the new Shamrock Rovers stadium should be a soccer-only venue.

Thomas Davis GAA Club has asked the court for permission to bring a legal challenge.

The Tallaght club wants to overturn South Dublin County Council's decision of February 13, 2006, that the 6,000-seat stadium at Whitestown Way, Tallaght, should be completed for soccer only.

That decision was in accordance with a proposal made by the county manager made earlier in 2005.

However, after a public consultation process and following a recommendation by the Tallaght Area Committee in November 2005, the 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.

Yesterday, Robert Barron, for the Thomas Davis club, applied to Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill for leave to bring judicial review proceedings aimed at overturning that decision which, he contended, was made in excess of the council's powers and was therefore null and void and of no effect.

Because the proceedings involve a planning matter, the club has to bring them on notice to affected parties and must also establish it has substantial grounds to bring the proceedings.

The stated objects of the GAA club were inconsistent with the development plan for the stadium

Both the council and Shamrock Rovers FC oppose the judicial review application. In submissions, Dermot Flanagan, for the council, said that the Thomas Davis club did not have the necessary legal standing to bring the case solely on the basis that it wished the stadium to be developed to facilitate the playing of Gaelic games.

The stated objects of the GAA club were inconsistent with the development plan for the stadium, he argued.

The stadium could only be completed with the assistance of funds from the minister who had stated these would be available only for a soccer-only stadium, Mr Flanagan added.

Maurice Collins, for Shamrock Rovers FC, argued the leave application was based on a narrow technical point.

The Thomas Davis club was really acting as emissaries for the GAA in bringing the case, he said. It wanted the Whitestown stadium to be the "Parnell Park of the southside."

While that aspiration might be noble, it had little to do with the application, counsel said. Even if the GAA club won the action, it would be of little benefit as the minister had refused to fund the development, counsel also argued.

The hearing continues on Tuesday.

Ann O'Loughlin

Irish Times 17.03.07

GAA club seeking to alter stadium decision

A GAA club has asked the High Court for permission to bring a legal challenge to a decision that the new Shamrock Rovers stadium in Tallaght should be a soccer-only venue.

Thomas Davis GAA club in Tallaght wants to overturn South Dublin County Council's decision of February 13th, 2006, that the 6,000-seat stadium at Whitestown Way, Tallaght, should be completed for soccer only.

That decision was in accordance with a proposal of the county manager made earlier in 2005.

However, after a public consultation process, and following a recommendation by the Tallaght Area Committee in November 2005, the manger's proposal was altered to one in favour of a multi-sport stadium involving the development of a larger pitch suitable for Gaelic games.

The council on December 12th, 2005, unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of the second proposal.

However, after it was told that Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism John O'Donoghue would only provide funding for a soccer-only stadium, the council on February 13th, 2006, passed a resolution which reverted to the original proposal.

Yesterday, Robert Barron SC, for the GAA club, applied to Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill for leave to bring judicial review proceedings aimed at overturning the February 13th decision which, he contended, was made in excess of the council's powers and was, therefore, null and void and of no effect.

The hearing continues on Tuesday.
__________________

stop posting articles directly.

we do buy the papers!

I'm not really bothered as to whether Thomas Davis have the RIGHT to play GAA or whether the Shams DESERVE to have a stadium built for them.

What I do care about is South Dublin County Council changing their mind about a decision, when put under pressure from a government minister. Local representatives should not be influenced like this. If the locals want a multi sport facility - then that is what it should be!

I also care about the same minister bad mouthing the GAA

Quote from: neilthemac on March 18, 2007, 11:27:57 AM
stop posting articles directly.

we do buy the papers!

I'm not really bothered as to whether Thomas Davis have the RIGHT to play GAA or whether the Shams DESERVE to have a stadium built for them.

What I do care about is South Dublin County Council changing their mind about a decision, when put under pressure from a government minister. Local representatives should not be influenced like this. If the locals want a multi sport facility - then that is what it should be!

I also care about the same minister bad mouthing the GAA

but you have profoundly missed the point. SDCC originally had it as a soccer only facilty and under pressure from the 6 local clubs the councellors changed their mind. JO'D told them that he wouldnt fund this so they changed their minds back again.

TD are appealing the legality of the second change of mind. but the first one is grand. so its ok for the GAA to have their say but not the minister funding it?

this entire thing is madness.

The only madness I see is the Minister ploughing such an astonishing amount of cash into what is not just a failed business (Shamrock Rovers) but a failed business model (Eircom League clubs - see: Shelbourne, Dublin City, St James' Gate, Waterford, various Limerick clubs). Bravo to anyone willing to confront such madness.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 18, 2007, 03:31:53 AM
[
the council have payed nothing yet.

we need the actual facts of the situation out there, and with respect Rossfan, you arent helping.

The SDCC have paid quite an amount of money on this -I will get the amount from my mate the South Dublin Council official when he's back working next week.
SHAMROCK ROVERS PAID NOTHING -FACT
I am obviously not helping your selective opinion on this matter by telling the inconvenient  truth.
As for the original proposal  - THAT WAS _THE COUNCIL GAVE A SITE TO SHAMS ,SHAMS APPLIED FOR PLANNING TO BUILD A STADIUM WHICH THEY WOULD BUILD WITH LOTTO FUNDING AND PRESUMABLY 25% OF THEIR OWN. They were to pay a rent of £10,000 to the Council none of which was paid.
Then the Council took back the lease after 5 or 6 years of looking at a semi derelict site and no rent coming in.
Then the Council went through the Special Planning process for Local Authorities to build a soccer only Stadium. After all the public submissions were examined the Councillors voted to amend the plans that were put out for public consumption to make the pitch big enough to accomodate Gaelic Games .
This was only right as it was now to be a totally public funded "Municipal Stadium" which imlpies that Soccer/GAA/Rugby/Hockey or anyone else could seek to use it -presumably by applying to and paying the Council for its use.
But enter the pompous ass from Kerry -"Soccer or nothing"
As for the Independent having facts - dont make me laugh -that rag ::)

Quotebut you have profoundly missed the point. SDCC originally had it as a soccer only facilty and under pressure from the 6 local clubs the councellors changed their mind. JO'D told them that he wouldnt fund this so they changed their minds back again.

TD are appealing the legality of the second change of mind. but the first one is grand. so its ok for the GAA to have their say but not the minister funding it?

this entire thing is madness.

and who elects these Councillors? Yeah, the GAA playing people of Tallaght. They know their constituents wishes better than anyone. They are not going to be unpopular with either the GAA or soccer public.
I doubt if there are many Rovers fans in Tallaght in the first place

Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2007, 03:46:18 PM

SHAMROCK ROVERS PAID NOTHING -FACT

you are lying. TD arent even suggesting that in the High Court.

Quote from: neilthemac on March 18, 2007, 05:49:25 PM

Quotebut you have profoundly missed the point. SDCC originally had it as a soccer only facilty and under pressure from the 6 local clubs the councellors changed their mind. JO'D told them that he wouldnt fund this so they changed their minds back again.

TD are appealing the legality of the second change of mind. but the first one is grand. so its ok for the GAA to have their say but not the minister funding it?

this entire thing is madness.

and who elects these Councillors? Yeah, the GAA playing people of Tallaght. They know their constituents wishes better than anyone. They are not going to be unpopular with either the GAA or soccer public.
I doubt if there are many Rovers fans in Tallaght in the first place

so why hasnt one elected representitive of the area supported TD while one FF TD has gone as far as taken out membership of Rovers? There is zero support on the ground, both within the GAA and outside it for this move. WE DO NOT HAVE THE POLITICAL CLOUT WE USED TO HAVE. reality check lads. FF and SF are siding with soccer over the GAA.

soccer is a far bigger game in Tallaght than Gaelic games. lets get real here. hence the panicked reaction from TD at the last possible point they could object. not during planning etc.

this is all irrelevant. TD are splitting hairs to find a very pernickety poing of procedure to stop this.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 18, 2007, 08:14:21 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2007, 03:46:18 PM

SHAMROCK ROVERS PAID NOTHING -FACT

you are lying. TD arent even suggesting that in the High Court.


the panicked reaction from TD at the last possible point they could object. not during planning etc.

Point one - I'm not lying -why was the builder only paid the amount of the Lotto Grant and left being owed €400k.All he got was the amount of the lotto grant.They might have given a few bob to whoever drew up plans/Engineers or whatever but to the building itself -NOTHING.

Point 2 -you can't object in the normal sense when a Local Authority is proposing something. They advertise and seek public submissions. Either Thos Davis alone or all the GAA clubs in Tallaght(I'm told there are 5 ? a good lot of votes there !!! and one of them is SF "friendly" I believe) wrote in saying that a municipal stadium should be also available for GAA games which led to the Councillors original vote to amend the plans to make the pitch big enough for football/hurling.
Then enter the Kerry  ******ks with his Sham Rovers/Soccer only  - followed by the application to the Courts by Davis's.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2007, 09:19:18 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 18, 2007, 08:14:21 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 18, 2007, 03:46:18 PM

SHAMROCK ROVERS PAID NOTHING -FACT

you are lying. TD arent even suggesting that in the High Court.


the panicked reaction from TD at the last possible point they could object. not during planning etc.

Point one - I'm not lying -why was the builder only paid the amount of the Lotto Grant and left being owed €400k.All he got was the amount of the lotto grant.They might have given a few bob to whoever drew up plans/Engineers or whatever but to the building itself -NOTHING.

Point 2 -you can't object in the normal sense when a Local Authority is proposing something. They advertise and seek public submissions. Either Thos Davis alone or all the GAA clubs in Tallaght(I'm told there are 5 ? a good lot of votes there !!! and one of them is SF "friendly" I believe) wrote in saying that a municipal stadium should be also available for GAA games which led to the Councillors original vote to amend the plans to make the pitch big enough for football/hurling.
Then enter the Kerry  ******ks with his Sham Rovers/Soccer only  - followed by the application to the Courts by Davis's.

I dont know where you are getting your figures, but you seem to be the only one saying SRFC have brought nothing at all to the table. No-one in the press or the courts has stated this, so you can understand why I quite frankly think you are pulling numbers our your arse because the mantra of a 'free stadium' is falling apart.

The point SSCC are making is that at no point in a: the original planning process or b: the section 8 process of the council taking ownership of the site did TD or the other clubs pipe up. It was later they lobbied councellors to amend the county managers plans. there was never any formal application from TD, the DCB or the GAA to get into the ground. the council then reverted to the original (and this is the key legal point) decision after JO'D reminded them that the soccer facility was part of the county development plan and that he would be funding it on that basis only. the GAA were asked did they want to be part of this development plan, and chose not to submit a project.

JO'D didnt 'enter' with a soccer only stadium, it always was such until an informal approach to the councellors from the local gaa. thats very disengenious of you considering for two weeks only this facility was designated multi sport before a unanimious decision of the council to revert to the original proposal.

TD are arguing a very specific technical point about the timescale of amendments to the county managers proposals. thats all they have.

who is funding this case?

Humphries talks sense yet again ...

  Minister sours the sweetest moments
Tom Humphries

Locker Room: If there is one small fly in the ointment of joy that the wonderful and novel achievements of our cricketers in Jamaica have given us it is the suspicion that our Minster for Sport will demand any day now that GAA grounds be opened for the playing of cricket.

It has been a grand week for the Irish sports aficionado. Steve Staunton's droll press conference was followed by Ruby Walsh's glory and then the cricketing revolution. The rugby boys scored 50 points because they needed to; Sunderland won again; the cricketers became a great story; Ballyhale - the epitome perhaps of the possibilities and potential of the GAA - returned to eminence; and the Dub hurling evolution continued apace.

And all the while lurking behind the blue skies like a storm front was the grim, vinegar puss of John O'Donoghue, the last mealy, free-roaming mouth and curmudgeon still in existence outside of this column's acreage.

There were some who thought that when O'Donoghue made his comments a while back about the Solheim Cup and fashion for the ladies perhaps he had the brains of a rocking horse. We realise now of course that he has the heart of a lion. In a move distinguished by both electoral bravery and crass stupidity the Minister has chosen this time to put the boot into the GAA.

Fortunately, Kerry is not a GAA county or it might have cost him votes.

Thomas Davis, a GAA club whose volunteers have been working for the people of Tallaght since - well, since 1887 actually - are in the throes of a High Court petition seeking permission to bring a legal challenge on a decision that the new Shamrock Rovers stadium in Tallaght should be a soccer-only venue. Thomas Davis want to overturn South Dublin County Council's decision of February 13th, 2006, that the 6,000-seat stadium at Whitestown Way should be completed for the purposes of soccer only.

Readers with long memories will recall that back in 1995, when this saga began, South Dublin County Council had ambitions for a 20,000-seat stadium in Tallaght which would be multi-purpose and have James's Gate soccer club as the anchor tenant.

James's Gate were soon supplanted by Shamrock Rovers, the itinerant club who have never quite recovered from selling their splendid ground in Milltown a couple of decades ago.

Down through the years as Rovers changed hands and became involved in a variety of different deals the complexion of the Tallaght deal has changed repeatedly.

The stadium lies like a ghostly monument to incompetence. After a public-consultation process, and following a recommendation by the Tallaght Area Committee in November 2005, the county manager's proposal for a single-purpose venue was altered, getting everyone back to the idea of a multi-sport stadium involving the development of a larger pitch suitable for Gaelic games.

On December 12th, 2005, SDCC unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of this proposal.

Rovers seemed happy. The GAA seemed happy. John O'Donoghue? Not happy.

Extraordinarily, he announced he would only fund a soccer-only stadium. The SDCC, having little choice, passed a resolution on February 13th, 2006, which reverted to the soccer-only scheme.

By now most people will have their own opinions about the relative claims of the parties to the dispute. The GAA clubs (there are five other local clubs backing Thomas Davis) have been rooted and seeded in the community for generations. They have worked hard for what facilities they provide. Sometimes they have benefited from grant money and Lotto money; all the time they have worked themselves to the bone for the community.

Shamrock Rovers are a professional soccer club, a commercial enterprise. They chose to sell the best ground in the country. Through extraordinary mismanagement they have lacked a ground of their own since. Despite the lustre of their name and history they have proven themselves incapable of providing facilities for their own use.

For some reason John O'Donoghue has leapt in and promised to fork out millions of taxpayers' money to come to the rescue of this commercial organisation. This is generous, not just because of Irish soccer's long, prodigal history of squandering and blowing cash and failing to provide for drizzly days. It is generous because the Minister apparently feels the pain of every surrendered penny as if he were paying for it by sale of his own organs.

Heroically unembarrassed by recent criticisms of the physical-education facilities offered our increasingly obese children, the Minister instead rounded on the GAA, a body which on a volunteer basis provided for generations what passed for a sports policy in this country; the GAA, which has worked to be at the heart of every community; the GAA, whose clubs from Thomas Davis to Laune Rangers provide football, hurling, camogie and women's football for anything up to 50 teams week in and week out.

The Minister had the unfeasibly large cojones to suggest that because the GAA received some money from the Government in the last few years it should just shut up about Tallaght. The Minister suggested Lotto funds (set up for arts and sport, but ransacked by successive governments for health funding) were actually all part of his money from selling his kidneys.

In fact, it was Lotto funding which made up all but 19 million of the 114 million given to help build Croke Park (192 million is promised to Lansdowne Road, but we suspect that will never get built and rugby will go out on its own down in Ringsend).

Croke Park is the sort of infrastructural project the Lotto was designed for. O'Donoghue appears to think Lotto funding is a grace-and-favour scheme which might buy him the rights to the GAA's silence on all issues.

Warming to his theme, the Minister chose to ignore the spirit of the times we live in.

"I also find it quite extraordinary," he said, "that the GAA should wish to play Gaelic games in a soccer ground given their outright opposition to soccer being played in their own grounds."

Wow! Now the ignorance on display here is quite profound. It becomes us though to scorn the man's simplicity. It means either he hasn't noticed Wales will be playing Ireland in soccer at Croke Park on Saturday or he expects GAA clubs all over the country to begin throwing their overused, over-mortgaged grounds open to soccer.

The Minister, we are sure, knows this would be an arrangement which could never be reciprocated given the dimensions of the various pitches involved and the existing overuse of every GAA pitch in the land.

The Minister apparently wants the GAA, a community-based, volunteer-based cultural and sporting body, to carry the can for the long history of squandering and mismanagement which has blighted the world's greatest professional game as played in this country. Soccer, which once thrived here domestically, professionally and entertainingly, has become a grim sideshow of foreclosures and receiverships.

In Tallaght, the argument isn't against Shamrock Rovers, although John Donoghue planting Rovers there will inevitably hurt the GAA population. The point is that nobody feels Rovers have given enough to the community to merit the amount of State aid being allocated. There is an unfairness at the heart of the concept and the Minister's crass comments underline that.

The GAA has already been quietly hurt by the Government's decision to renege on an earlier promise that the rebuilt Lansdowne would have a pitch configured to permit the playing of the occasional GAA game.

The whispers are, though, that when the planning people get back this week the news will be that the stadium's proposed capacity will be whittled and the IRFU, a little surprised perhaps at the sweetheart of a deal the FAI were handed in the redevelopment master plan, will opt to cash in their chips in D4 and build elsewhere on their own steam (with, one hopes, appropriate Lotto funding to help). The Irish Glass Bottle Company in Ringsend would be the perfect site.

And so Irish professional soccer, a commercial enterprise which retails a genuinely beautiful game, but is domestically incapable of running its own business, will be homeless again. Will Minister O'Donoghue be able to find a way to blame it on the GAA? Of course he will.

© 2007 The Irish Times

Excellent piece by Humphries.

QuoteFortunately, Kerry is not a GAA county or it might have cost him votes.

To ensure future fair play for the GAA, the good GAA folk of Kerry need to vote this moron out

QuoteTo ensure future fair play for the GAA, the good GAA folk of Kerry need to vote this moron out

even non-GAA people should vote him out, because who wants an eejit representing them.

Spot on the Minister for fun he is some clown . He has lost touch with reality .

As Del Boy used to say "what a plonker".   How can this guy be a Government Minister?.

Excellent article as always from TH.
I think Mr Humphries makes my points much better than I ever could.As for "Dublin"fella(Maybe Shamsfella be more apt???) when are you going to stop spoofing that Shamrock Rovers put money into  the Stadium?

So Tom Humphries point is that because TD have been around Tallaght forever they are entitled to dictate to the Govt how they fund other sports? TH convieniently ignores all the Rovers youth teams in Tallaght, their scholarships in the secondary schools and the IT etc. To say they contribute nothing to the sporting culture of Tallaght is a tad offensive to them.

But this line is a classic: The Minister, we are sure, knows this would be an arrangement which could never be reciprocated given the dimensions of the various pitches involved and the existing overuse of every GAA pitch in the land. The argument the Dos, SDCC, and SRFC make is that sharing with the GAA would reduce the capacity to 2,000, which would render the project useless. Its not an ideological thing, just the pitch doenst fit on the site. To ignore this while arguing that soccer grounds dont fit on GAA pitches is at best disengenious. Soccer pitches cant fit into GAA ones, but GAA ones can on soccer ones? Good logic Tom.  ::)

To say that a quid pro quo of CP being rented to the FAI is them allowing us free access to a stadium that doenst fit our needs in an area we never bothered looking for one before is farcical.

He is quite right that soccer in this country is appalingly badly run, but the suggestion that Rovers as a club gained from the sale of Milltown is palin wrong. Say that to a Rovers fan, or any LoI fan and see the reaction. TH is around long enough to remember KRAM and the literally riots that met the Kilcoynes skullduggery.

The entire tone of the piece suggests JO'D just decided to turn a shared facility into a soccer only one. Thats just wrong. It always was soccer only until the 6 clubs lobbied the councellors, a decsion the councellors reversed. Can the GAA clubs feel hard dome by? yes. Is it illegal? no. but again, there was never any formal approach to SDCC from the GAA for inclusion. but TH didnt bother with that.

Interesting he never once touched on any legal reason why TD are right, just some 1950's notion of the GAA holding a torch against thise evil foreign games. From a man who saw kids playing rugby in his estate a few weeks ago and joked about running them over. Hilarious. He was a lot better a writer when he wasnt a mouthpiece. This whole episode os bringing up attitudes to other sports i thought we had long abandoned.

It's interesting to contrast the official attitudes of the British and Irish governments towards GAA access to government-funded sports infrastructure.

The British government proposes to fund a multi-sports stadium in the North. It has made it clear it's a non-runner unless the GAA is willing to use the stadium.

The Irish government proposes to fund a multi-sports stadium in Lansdowne Road, but defines multi-sport as two-sport and specifically excludes the GAA from it (having originally undertaken to include it as a ploy to get the GAA membership to vote for admitting soccer and rugby to Croke Park and then changing its mind when that was achieved in a brass-necked official "f*** you", when "thank you" was what we were entitled to expect) .

The Irish government further proposes to fund a single-sport stadium in Tallaght and again specifically instructs the local authority concerned to reverse its decision to include the GAA.

Maybe we should rejoin the union. Then we could look forward to parity of esteem from officialdom and a decent chance of securing reasonable funding to develop our sport. (Better put a little smiley yoke here -  :))

Of course that would deprive us of the entertainment provided by the ever-reliable uber-buffoon from Kerry. What sort of a gold-plated gobshite chooses the very week when the first soccer international is to be staged in Croke Park as the occasion for a gratuitous attack on the GAA for its "outright opposition to soccer being played in their grounds"?

DF, why don't you write a letter to the Irish Times pointing out the various inaccuracies?  God knows you do love to vent your opinions on the issue.

Dublinfella – all that bluster doesn't obscure the central question that you have continually failed to answer. Why should the government fund capital projects for private commercial entities? What possible justification can there be for this in any circumstances? What does the spending of taxpayers' money effectively for the exclusive benefit of a private sports-entertainment company contribute to the community?

How do Shamrock Rovers qualify for this largesse? Why them and not any other soccer club in the country, or any other club of any description – even genuine community-based, amateur, non-commercial ones?

What would say, Newtown Blues in Drogheda be told if they approached Louth County Council and asked them to build a stadium for their exclusive use? Even if they promised to contribute 25%-odd (whether they ever really did or ever really intended to)? Even accounting for the fact that they have been contributing to the local community for over a century? Even allowing for the fact that they are not the third or fourth incarnation of a tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, failed commercial entity that serially liquidates to dodge its debts and tax liabilities?

How did Shamrock Rovers pull this off and how does my club apply for the same treatment?

Quote from: Hardy on March 19, 2007, 04:21:58 PM
Dublinfella – all that bluster doesn't obscure the central question that you have continually failed to answer. Why should the government fund capital projects for private commercial entities? What possible justification can there be for this in any circumstances? What does the spending of taxpayers' money effectively for the exclusive benefit of a private sports-entertainment company contribute to the community?

How do Shamrock Rovers qualify for this largesse? Why them and not any other soccer club in the country, or any other club of any description – even genuine community-based, amateur, non-commercial ones?

Rovers arent a 'private commercial entity'. They are a members club with an all volunteer staff off the pitch and a group of part time local players. They are not Man Utd ffs. All profits are put back into the club. How are Rovers less community based? They have been in Tallaght more than 10 years. Its this kind of innacuracy that doesnt help the discussion

I dont know what Rovers have done. Im not here to defend them. I presume the minister agrees with the FAI about 2 decent grounds in Dublin on either side of the Liffey with Bohs/Shels in one and Rovers/Pats in the other like the contenentials do it. But thats not the point. Even if Rovers get a gold plated stadium with a diamond pitch the dept are entitled to fund other sports, even if the elite are professional. Are you saying no funds for atheltics, boxing, swimming, golf etc because there are professionals at the top?

What will the reaction be if TD win and the FAI decide to retaliate and return the favour? Rule 42 could be deemed illegal if public funds are involved.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 04:50:51 PM
Rovers arent a 'private commercial entity'. They are a members club with an all volunteer staff off the pitch and a group of part time local players. They are not Man Utd ffs. All profits are put back into the club. How are Rovers less community based? They have been in Tallaght more than 10 years. Its this kind of innacuracy that doesnt help the discussion

And how do we know Rovers won't go down the one of the roads they went down previously, such as Johnny Giles and his European-Cup-in-seven-years? Or that which Shels went down? Or Leeds United? The temptation is obvious, and Rovers have form. All we have is their word, which isn't anywhere near good enough.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 04:50:51 PMI dont know what Rovers have done. Im not here to defend them. I presume the minister agrees with the FAI about 2 decent grounds in Dublin on either side of the Liffey with Bohs/Shels in one and Rovers/Pats in the other like the contenentials do it.

Eh? Are you seriously telling us the Minister looked at Milan and said "hey, we'll have some of that"? And since when are Pats moving to Tallaght? And since when are Shels and Bohs getting a ground built for them too?!

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 04:50:51 PMBut thats not the point. Even if Rovers get a gold plated stadium with a diamond pitch the dept are entitled to fund other sports, even if the elite are professional. Are you saying no funds for atheltics, boxing, swimming, golf etc because there are professionals at the top?

It's exactly the point. Even at their most generous, the EU never funded 90+% of any project. Let me put it this way. If Ray Burke was the Minister involved, would you be so blasé?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 04:50:51 PMWhat will the reaction be if TD win and the FAI decide to retaliate and return the favour? Rule 42 could be deemed illegal if public funds are involved.

It might happen. They'd be entitled to their day in court if there was a prima facie case to answer. But they won't find GAA clubs receiving 90%+ funding for anything.

Quote from: deiseach on March 19, 2007, 05:17:21 PM

It might happen. They'd be entitled to their day in court if there was a prima facie case to answer. But they won't find GAA clubs receiving 90%+ funding for anything.

But Deiseach, thats not the case TD are bringing. Agreed, its a moral argument, but of utter irrelevance to the case in the high court at the moment and the consequent criticisms from JO'D.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 05:25:40 PM

Quote from: deiseach on March 19, 2007, 05:17:21 PM

It might happen. They'd be entitled to their day in court if there was a prima facie case to answer. But they won't find GAA clubs receiving 90%+ funding for anything.

But Deiseach, thats not the case TD are bringing. Agreed, its a moral argument, but of utter irrelevance to the case in the high court at the moment and the consequent criticisms from JO'D.

In the legal sense, there's clearly a case to answer. Otherwise the beak would have thrown it out straight away as having no merit whatsover. And (I note with amusement) I see you have accepted for the first time the possibility that Thomas Davis might win having spent God-knows-how-long pouring scorn on the very idea.

Quote from: deiseach on March 19, 2007, 05:43:54 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 05:25:40 PM

Quote from: deiseach on March 19, 2007, 05:17:21 PM

It might happen. They'd be entitled to their day in court if there was a prima facie case to answer. But they won't find GAA clubs receiving 90%+ funding for anything.

But Deiseach, thats not the case TD are bringing. Agreed, its a moral argument, but of utter irrelevance to the case in the high court at the moment and the consequent criticisms from JO'D.

In the legal sense, there's clearly a case to answer. Otherwise the beak would have thrown it out straight away as having no merit whatsover. And (I note with amusement) I see you have accepted for the first time the possibility that Thomas Davis might win having spent God-knows-how-long pouring scorn on the very idea.

Again Deiseach, basic stuff. TD are taking leave for a judicial review, the application was adjourned till tuesday because some emergency case came up. The sumbissions have to at least be heard for the judge to theow it out.There is a significant chance it will be thrown out on Tuesday,with the possibility that the judge will retire for a week to decide if the case has merit enough to warrant a judicial review. I'm more confident than ever that this will be given short shrift as the timewaste that it, especially as it appears TD scored a serious own goal in the opeing submissions.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 05:50:50 PM
Again Deiseach, basic stuff. TD are taking leave for a judicial review, the application was adjourned till tuesday because some emergency case came up. The sumbissions have to at least be heard for the judge to theow it out.There is a significant chance it will be thrown out on Tuesday,with the possibility that the judge will retire for a week to decide if the case has merit enough to warrant a judicial review. I'm more confident than ever that this will be given short shrift as the timewaste that it, especially as it appears TD scored a serious own goal in the opeing submissions.

If it's thrown out, it's thrown out. The rule of law is a good thing. But seeing as you are talking in hypotheticals, what will happen to your opinion if Thomas Davis win? Considering your hostility to this whole affair has been down to the legality of it rather than the moral implications, will you conclude that they were right all along?

Christ, I'd love it, love it, if John "The Bullshitter" O'Donoghue lost his seat for his carry on.  :)
Also, I'm glad that the Croke Park funding has gotten a proper public airing.
Too many gobshites spout the "taxpayers built it" line, so Zero O'Donoghue has inadvertedly helped clarify the issue publicly with his bluster!

You sound like Kevin Keegan BnM man.

o'Donoghue is unlikely to get booted out from South Kerry in fairness. I'd be more than shocked. I'm surprised at his stance here. O'Donoghue has served his club well in South Kerry, but he definitely seems to be taking an anti-GAA stance. It is as if he feels personally insulted by the position TD have taken, and is lashing out.

Certainly doing himself harm I would think, especially in terms of future ministerial appointments.

there is no chance john o donoghue is going to lose his seat over this, hes done a lot for the gaa over the years and he himself will tell you he comes from a gaa background. i read his reasons a while back and (for the life of me i cant remember them!) i remember thinking he had some good points but i do think he has called this wrong. az makes a good point that this may yet effect his future prospects, messy squabbles aint berties style....

mid louth, imo everyone must be welcome on the board otherwise its useless..

dublinfella, would you be happy if the stadium was shared with the gaa? rovers would have their home and the gaa would not be at a disadvantage..... imo until this happens td are dead right to fight as long as they can

magickingdom,

Quotehes done a lot for the gaa over the years

maybe, but he's doing a hell of a lot of damage at the minute. I hope the Kerry GAA constituency show some solidarity with Dublin GAA and kick him out.

Quote from: deiseach on March 19, 2007, 05:55:30 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 05:50:50 PM
Again Deiseach, basic stuff. TD are taking leave for a judicial review, the application was adjourned till tuesday because some emergency case came up. The sumbissions have to at least be heard for the judge to theow it out.There is a significant chance it will be thrown out on Tuesday,with the possibility that the judge will retire for a week to decide if the case has merit enough to warrant a judicial review. I'm more confident than ever that this will be given short shrift as the timewaste that it, especially as it appears TD scored a serious own goal in the opeing submissions.

If it's thrown out, it's thrown out. The rule of law is a good thing. But seeing as you are talking in hypotheticals, what will happen to your opinion if Thomas Davis win? Considering your hostility to this whole affair has been down to the legality of it rather than the moral implications, will you conclude that they were right all along?

the reality of them winning is the DoS dont fund the multi sport facility on the grounds its too small for the Dubs and Rovers, SDCC kill the plan and reword it so they can build a soccer stadium on that site. the councellors will cote for a third time on a soccer only facilty. TD  are fully aware of this. thats whats driving me nuts. a total phyricc victory. Its nearly better for Rovers for TD to win, so there is no lengthy appeal process. Rovers/FAI have a legally binding agreement with SDCC regardless of where their ground is built. i personally think thats a disgrace, they balls it up and the swap the land back for a finished stadium, but thats the reality.

either way, the Dubs will never play in Tallaght stadium. which brings me back to the waste of time argument, and the serious question of who is funding this and why arent they bringing the case?

Quote from: magickingdom on March 19, 2007, 07:36:37 PM

mid louth, imo everyone must be welcome on the board otherwise its useless..

thank you, im fed up of being labelled a soccer fan for pointing out the futiliy of this course of action.

Quote from: magickingdom on March 19, 2007, 07:36:37 PM
dublinfella, would you be happy if the stadium was shared with the gaa? rovers would have their home and the gaa would not be at a disadvantage..... imo until this happens td are dead right to fight as long as they can

No. Because if they do, that would be a 2,000 seater ground and that would be the 'southside parnell park'. not good enough in my opinion. too small for them and waaaaaay to small for the dubs. its a cheap and lazy way out from the DCB, who lets face it are the puppetmasters here. and its caused major friction with a friendly government and council. and it just looks petty.

lets cut the bullshit and get going on rathcoole.

however i see the pleasure GAA folk might take in swiping s stadium from the rivals, its short termist and lets those who have failed to provide a southside venue off the hook

QuoteRovers arent a 'private commercial entity'. They are a members club with an all volunteer staff off the pitch and a group of part time local players ...

Deiseach has answered this. Just to emphasise the point – they're a members' club this year. Previously they were a family business, which stripped the assets and scarpered. Subsequently they were a tax-defaulting failed business, in more than one incarnation, as I remember. What will they be next year?

QuoteAre you saying no funds for atheltics, boxing, swimming, golf etc because there are professionals at the top?

I've answered this before. I don't see the need to repeat myself.
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=1891.msg57281#msg57281 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=1891.msg57281#msg57281)

Now, how about answering my other questions from my earlier post:

QuoteHow do Shamrock Rovers qualify for this largesse?

Why them and not any other soccer club in the country, or any other club of any description – even genuine community-based, amateur, non-commercial ones?

What would say, Newtown Blues in Drogheda be told if they approached Louth County Council and asked them to build a stadium for their exclusive use? Even if they promised to contribute 25%-odd (whether they ever really did or ever really intended to)? Even accounting for the fact that they have been contributing to the local community for over a century? Even allowing for the fact that they are not the third or fourth incarnation of a tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, failed commercial entity that serially liquidates to dodge its debts and tax liabilities?

How did Shamrock Rovers pull this off and how does my club apply for the same treatment?

Quotethe councellors (sic) will cote for a third time on a soccer only facilty.

what? on a free vote, the coucillors will vote agaisnt the results of their own public consultation which emphatically supported a multi sports stadium, not a soccer only one.
Not only are teh Govt trying to ride roughshod over the GAA, they're doing the saem to the public of Tallaght.

Quotelets cut the bullshit and get going on rathcoole.

Sounds good. Lets sell it, pocket the proceeds, then get a local council to provide us with a site for free, and a govt department to build it as well.
Why didn't us hard working GAA fans think of that one?

surely its against european competition rules to subsidizr a private enterprize this way? also if shamrocks are now a new company ie a members club they are no longer the enity that were promised the ground in the 1st place  anything else wouls would make a mockery of our company law .
As for milltown of course rovers sold it . they sold it to the kilcoyne family who lost money hand over fist with shamrocks and recouped they money by selling it onas was their right  but that dont mean i should now pay for their stupidity/greed through my taxes

Quote from: snatter on March 20, 2007, 09:12:06 AM

Quotethe councellors (sic) will cote for a third time on a soccer only facilty.

what? on a free vote, the coucillors will vote agaisnt the results of their own public consultation which emphatically supported a multi sports stadium, not a soccer only one.
Not only are teh Govt trying to ride roughshod over the GAA, they're doing the saem to the public of Tallaght.

FFS snatter, this is the whole damn point. the public consultation emphatically supported a soccer only stadium. the GAA never partook in the public consultation. the 6 clubs lobbied the councellors to have this report changed to multisport after the process had finished. the councellors reverted to the original county development plan which was soccer only when the minister interevened on funding.

by your locgic its actually TD riding roughshod over the people of tallaght.

Quote from: Hardy on March 20, 2007, 08:07:37 AM

QuoteRovers arent a 'private commercial entity'. They are a members club with an all volunteer staff off the pitch and a group of part time local players ...

Deiseach has answered this. Just to emphasise the point – they're a members' club this year. Previously they were a family business, which stripped the assets and scarpered. Subsequently they were a tax-defaulting failed business, in more than one incarnation, as I remember. What will they be next year?

QuoteAre you saying no funds for atheltics, boxing, swimming, golf etc because there are professionals at the top?

I've answered this before. I don't see the need to repeat myself.
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=1891.msg57281#msg57281 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=1891.msg57281#msg57281)

Now, how about answering my other questions from my earlier post:

QuoteHow do Shamrock Rovers qualify for this largesse?
?

again, my intertest in this is purely to see the DCB pull their finger out and build us what was promised. i dont know if rovers are getting all the generosity that is being attributed to them, but there appears to be a latent hostility to them getting anything full stop. its not the 1950's. the ban is over. they got some funding, stop the bloody crying.

you havent answered in any way why you believe professional sports that arent soccer can get funding. lets call a spade a spade. its simply anti-socer bias?

BTW isnt the official line that this has nothing to do with Rovers and that TD want them in there asap? or is that mask slipping too?

all of this handwringing is irrelevent. and has nothing to do with the legal case being discussed at the moment in the HC

Please stop with the abuse and questioning the motives of people who disagree with you. It's not anti-soccer bias, I have no tiime for bans and I deplore sporting apartheid. I have answered clearly why community organisations should get funding and commercial entities shouldn't (indeed mustn't, under EU rules - it's anti-competitive).

Again, why should Shamrock Rovers be given a stadium (almost) free for their exclusive use? Why won't every other League of Ireland club then apply for the same from their local authority? Won't they have a case for a discrimination suit if they're refused, given that one of their competitors in a commercial enterprise was singled out to receive capital funding from the state, to the commercial disadvantage of every other participant in the market?

What criteria have been applied to the public subvention  process that result in Shamrock Rovers emerging as the sole sports club selected to receive almost full public funding for their capital projects? What would a good lawyer cost our club when we decide to take a case for discrimination when Cork Co. Co. (as they undoubtedly will) refuse our application for a free stadium under the same criteria. (Well, OK, not free – we'll put up 10% - or at least we'll SAY we will.).

QuotePlease stop with the abuse and questioning the motives of people who disagree with you.

Is 'abuse and questioning the motives of people who disagree with you' not obligatory on the board?  :P

EU competetion law very clearly doesnt apply to sports. Hence the Italians, French, Dutch etc play their professional sports in municipal facilities.


There was a discussion on this site not to long ago about the state paying GAA players.


These facilities arent even new to Ireland. We have state run athletics tracks, golf courses etc. no objection to those sports getting funds. no objections to a state owned athletics track in ringsend. or sanry. or thurles. why not? and if the FAI are a shambles, take a look at the swimmers.... its just more fashionalbe to vent spleen at Rovers than tell TD to cop on and meet their challenge head on. to say this episode is not anti-soccer is clearly untrue.

this is a waste if time blocking move, which has the side effect of ensuring we get no suitable southside venue. while posters here demand the people of Kerry get rid of JO'D for simply saying no to the GAA. once.

Quote from: Hardy on March 20, 2007, 12:49:07 PM
Please stop with the abuse and questioning the motives of people who disagree with you. It's not anti-soccer bias, I have no tiime for bans and I deplore sporting apartheid. I have answered clearly why community organisations should get funding and commercial entities shouldn't (indeed mustn't, under EU rules - it's anti-competitive).

Again, why should Shamrock Rovers be given a stadium (almost) free for their exclusive use? Why won't every other League of Ireland club then apply for the same from their local authority? Won't they have a case for a discrimination suit if they're refused, given that one of their competitors in a commercial enterprise was singled out to receive capital funding from the state, to the commercial disadvantage of every other participant in the market?

What criteria have been applied to the public subvention  process that result in Shamrock Rovers emerging as the sole sports club selected to receive almost full public funding for their capital projects? What would a good lawyer cost our club when we decide to take a case for discrimination when Cork Co. Co. (as they undoubtedly will) refuse our application for a free stadium under the same criteria. (Well, OK, not free – we'll put up 10% - or at least we'll SAY we will.).

ah Hardy, stop asking him hard questions that he can't answer. Ask him ones where he can give answers that both suit his position and his agenda, regardless of how true or otherwise they may be.

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 20, 2007, 01:17:19 PM

Quote from: Hardy on March 20, 2007, 12:49:07 PM
Please stop with the abuse and questioning the motives of people who disagree with you. It's not anti-soccer bias, I have no tiime for bans and I deplore sporting apartheid. I have answered clearly why community organisations should get funding and commercial entities shouldn't (indeed mustn't, under EU rules - it's anti-competitive).

Again, why should Shamrock Rovers be given a stadium (almost) free for their exclusive use? Why won't every other League of Ireland club then apply for the same from their local authority? Won't they have a case for a discrimination suit if they're refused, given that one of their competitors in a commercial enterprise was singled out to receive capital funding from the state, to the commercial disadvantage of every other participant in the market?

What criteria have been applied to the public subvention  process that result in Shamrock Rovers emerging as the sole sports club selected to receive almost full public funding for their capital projects? What would a good lawyer cost our club when we decide to take a case for discrimination when Cork Co. Co. (as they undoubtedly will) refuse our application for a free stadium under the same criteria. (Well, OK, not free – we'll put up 10% - or at least we'll SAY we will.).

ah Hardy, stop asking him hard questions that he can't answer. Ask him ones where he can give answers that both suit his position and his agenda, regardless of how true or otherwise they may be.

again, I dont know nor care the internal machinactions of FAI/DoS relations. All im concerned about is the futility of taking a case that TD know they are unlikely to win on a number of levels, have been told even if they win, their goal of the Dubs in the stadium wont happen. Im concerned that this is how we now do projects. Im concerned about how quickly and dramatically relations with the Dept have fallen. Im concerend clubs would prefer to use the courts as a tactic to take on other codes rather than the strength of the games. Im concerned that it now appears to be a valid tactic to try and interfere with other sports funding, and as the largest recipients by a mile, we are open to 'revenge' attacks (as promised) from other sports going forward. Im concerend that GAA folk feel the need to feed Tom Humphries and the like that we 'only' got €19m from the state like the other €110m just appeared from the sky and what that public ingratitude may mean next time we go for big funds. Im concerened that the President of a GAA club can go to court in its name apparently without the backing of the trustees of that club......

If anyone can find any factual or legal innacuracies in my posts, please correct them. Or if you prefer just snipe that im a soccer plant. whatever.

soccer plant

"dublinfella, would you be happy if the stadium was shared with the gaa? rovers would have their home and the gaa would not be at a disadvantage..... imo until this happens td are dead right to fight as long as they can"

"No. Because if they do, that would be a 2,000 seater ground and that would be the 'southside parnell park'. not good enough in my opinion. too small for them and waaaaaay to small for the dubs. its a cheap and lazy way out from the DCB, who lets face it are the puppetmasters here. and its caused major friction with a friendly government and council. and it just looks petty. "


thats half the problem here, rovers fans dont want to share squat. because of that and because td are right i hope they drag the thing on ad nauseam. you might think thats a terrible attitude and it is but in this case its exactly what rovers deserve....

Quote from: magickingdom on March 20, 2007, 01:47:45 PM
"dublinfella, would you be happy if the stadium was shared with the gaa? rovers would have their home and the gaa would not be at a disadvantage..... imo until this happens td are dead right to fight as long as they can"

"No. Because if they do, that would be a 2,000 seater ground and that would be the 'southside parnell park'. not good enough in my opinion. too small for them and waaaaaay to small for the dubs. its a cheap and lazy way out from the DCB, who lets face it are the puppetmasters here. and its caused major friction with a friendly government and council. and it just looks petty. "


thats half the problem here, rovers fans dont want to share squat. because of that and because td are right i hope they drag the thing on ad nauseam. you might think thats a terrible attitude and it is but in this case its exactly what rovers deserve....

I think he was saying "No" as a Dublin fan not as a Rovers fan.
I dont think Rovers have voiced any concerns about sharing - its just the Minister. Rovers just want a stadium and want it as fast as possible.

Quote from: magickingdom on March 20, 2007, 01:47:45 PM

thats half the problem here, rovers fans dont want to share squat. because of that and because td are right i hope they drag the thing on ad nauseam. you might think thats a terrible attitude and it is but in this case its exactly what rovers deserve....

again basics of the case, they are willing to share with anyone, but not have the structures of the stadium altered to its detriment. its been made clear underage GAA is welcome. people have to get over this thought that its an ideological anti gaa decision. its purely down to the logistics of getting a full size gaa pitch onto that site.

does your club share its facilities? mine doesnt, and i dont think we should 'get what we deserve'

QuoteInsert Quote
Quote from: snatter on Today at 10:12:06 AM
Quote
the councellors (sic) will cote for a third time on a soccer only facilty.

what? on a free vote, the coucillors will vote agaisnt the results of their own public consultation which emphatically supported a multi sports stadium, not a soccer only one.
Not only are teh Govt trying to ride roughshod over the GAA, they're doing the saem to the public of Tallaght.


FFS snatter, this is the whole damn point. the public consultation emphatically supported a soccer only stadium. the GAA never partook in the public consultation. the 6 clubs lobbied the councellors to have this report changed to multisport after the process had finished. the councellors reverted to the original county development plan which was soccer only when the minister interevened on funding.

by your locgic its actually TD riding roughshod over the people of tallaght.

Dublinfella, the pressure must be getting to you. You're starting to lose touch with reality.
Don't believe me? Then draw breath, and slowly and calmly read this indo report THAT YOU POSTED FFS.

QuoteIndo - 17.03.07
GAA club in High Court bid to play on soccer grounds

However, after a public consultation process and following a recommendation by the Tallaght Area Committee in November 2005, the 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.

(btw, the Headline should actually read council/public/municipal grounds, not soccer grounds).

OR, try this one ALSO POSTED BY YOURSELF, YOU DIPSTICK

QuoteIrish Times 17.03.07

GAA club seeking to alter stadium decision

That decision was in accordance with a proposal of the county manager made earlier in 2005.

However, after a public consultation process, and following a recommendation by the Tallaght Area Committee in November 2005, the manger's proposal was altered to one in favour of a multi-sport stadium involving the development of a larger pitch suitable for Gaelic games.

The council on December 12th, 2005, unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of the second proposal.

Your head is so far up your arse on this one that you can't even be bothered to read what you're posting yourself.

So I'll say it again:
Not only are the Govt trying to ride roughshod over the GAA, they're doing the same to the public of Tallaght who have spoken in the public consultation.

Dublinfella,

Quotedoes your club share its facilities? mine doesnt, and i dont think we should 'get what we deserve'

FFS, that's the whole point - they're not Sham Rover's facilities to share, they belong to the public.
A public who have already been consulted and who wanted a multi-sports facility accomodating gaelic games.

Most GAA clubs on the other hand actually own (ie have paid for - admittedly a strange concept for a Sham Rovers bigot to comprehend) their facilities, and one of the perks of ownership is that they can use them exclusively for their own benefit.
I don't know about your fictional GAA club, but in mine, the biggest squabble about using the pitch is between the club's teams - we have over 15 teams trying to share one pitch. There's no room for any freeloaders on top of that.

Little to add that has not been already said.  Fair play to ye dublinfella; I might not agree with you but I admire your persistence.

Can anyone confirm an "ironic" point to me ... the barrister for SDCC is named in the news articles as Dermot Flanagan.  Would that be the former Mayo footballer, and son of the Mayo legend and former Fianna Fail Minister Sean Flanagan?

If it is, I'm just wondering how he might feel arguing AGAINST support for a GAA club, or is it his FF roots that are holding sway, or is he just being a good legal man and to hell with his own beliefs?

If it's not, then the bulk of my post is irrelevant.  Nothing new there then.  :-X

"Little to add that has not been already said.  Fair play to ye dublinfella; I might not agree with you but I admire your persistence."


i'd like to second that. dublinfella you remind me of a dog i once had, a pug. great dog all heart, dump as a rocking chair (not saying that about you!) but he just wouldnt focking quit.....

Quote from: dublinfella on March 20, 2007, 12:29:30 PM



the GAA never partook in the public consultation. 

Absolute and utter LIE .
I have gone to the trouble of reading the Sth Dublin Council Minutes if their meeting of December 2005.
There's a big long report on the submissions received as part of the PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS.
It refers to the submissions of Dublin Co Board and Cumann Tomás Dáibhis who both stated that a Municipal Stadium should be available for Gaelic Games also.
Please stop lying on this saga - opinions are one thing and are to be respected but untruths are another matter.

Quote from: The Biff on March 20, 2007, 07:04:46 PM
Little to add that has not been already said.  Fair play to ye dublinfella; I might not agree with you but I admire your persistence.

Can anyone confirm an "ironic" point to me ... the barrister for SDCC is named in the news articles as Dermot Flanagan.  Would that be the former Mayo footballer, and son of the Mayo legend and former Fianna Fail Minister Sean Flanagan?

If it is, I'm just wondering how he might feel arguing AGAINST support for a GAA club, or is it his FF roots that are holding sway, or is he just being a good legal man and to hell with his own beliefs?

If it's not, then the bulk of my post is irrelevant.  Nothing new there then.  :-X

Haven't read the reports,but Dermot Flannagan is a barrister so presume it's the same man. And I'd imagine he's just being a good legal man, struggling to earn a crust and all that, sure those boys can't afford beliefs ;)

Quote from: dublinfella on March 20, 2007, 02:07:21 PM
does your club share its facilities? mine doesnt, and i dont think we should 'get what we deserve'

mine does.

then I doubt you even have a club - a GAA one anyway.

QuoteEU competetion law very clearly doesnt apply to sports. Hence the Italians, French, Dutch etc play their professional sports in municipal facilities.

Municipal facilities that are available for other sports.

The fact that you cannot see how wrong and crooked this is worries me greatly. I think even Shams would agree to allowing GAA in if they get an almost free stadium.

In our rush to point out the absurdities of dublinfella's posts, lets not forget that it is O'Donoghue who is the real muppet here.

People of Kerry - Vote him out.

Has there been any update on the court case since it recommenced on Tuesday?

Judgement has "been reserved" - which I think usually means the Judge wants to go away and think about it and probably read up on the Law in this area.
A decision will be given "in due course" no doubt.

"Judgement has "been reserved" - which I think usually means the Judge wants to go away and think about it and probably read up on the Law in this area.
A decision will be given "in due course" no doubt"


thats exactly what it means. in complex cases, they will often sit on it for a while...

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 21, 2007, 09:00:16 AM
The fact that you cannot see how wrong and crooked this is worries me greatly. I think even Shams would agree to allowing GAA in if they get an almost free stadium.

Well, it seems they wouldn't because they need a 10,000 capacity stadium. Quite apart from some dispute over whether a GAA pitch would reduce the capacity to 2,000, why the hell do Rovers need a 10,000 capacity stadium?!

Quote from: deiseach on March 22, 2007, 09:33:44 AM

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 21, 2007, 09:00:16 AM
The fact that you cannot see how wrong and crooked this is worries me greatly. I think even Shams would agree to allowing GAA in if they get an almost free stadium.

Well, it seems they wouldn't because they need a 10,000 capacity stadium. Quite apart from some dispute over whether a GAA pitch would reduce the capacity to 2,000, why the hell do Rovers need a 10,000 capacity stadium?!

so that dublinfella has lots of choice about where he can sit along with the other 20 rovers die-hards at every game. Think of it - do I want a seat with a view of the Dublin mountains, or one with a view of the Square. Its a serious dilemma really.

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 22, 2007, 09:41:07 AM

so that dublinfella has lots of choice about where he can sit along with the other 20 rovers die-hards at every game. Think of it - do I want a seat with a view of the Dublin mountains, or one with a view of the Square. Its a serious dilemma really.

do you really want to compare Rovers crowds with TD's?

TD try and have their own case delayed by 18 months. TD are arguing that there was a breach of the constitution  (not SDCC procedures, or even at a stretch planning law, but the feckin constitution) in the reverting back to the original decision. It was revealed in court on tuesday that the changing of the county managers plan to multi sport was always contingent on the DoS funding being in place. And I'm absurd?  ::)

anyone see the soccer pitch buried in the middle of CP? and people want you to believe a GAA pitch can fit on a soccer pitch and have no impact on the stand? And I'm absurd?  ::)

Is no-one worried that the chairman of a club can take a case in the clubs name on behalf of the DCB apparently without the backing of the trustees of the club and the official backing of the DCB/GAA? And I'm absurd?  ::)

Sure its easier to lash JO'D out of it than for one second think that a GAA clubs motives are less than sporting when it comes to a rival code.

And that the money to pay for this case and the full judicial review if they win will fall from the sky and could never have been used for someting positive like paying for 10 full time coaches or promoting the games. That would be truely absurd that would.

Dont be absurd Dublinfella

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 21, 2007, 09:00:16 AM

QuoteEU competetion law very clearly doesnt apply to sports. Hence the Italians, French, Dutch etc play their professional sports in municipal facilities.

Municipal facilities that are available for other sports.

other sports THAT FIT IN THE STADIUM.

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 21, 2007, 09:00:16 AM

Quote
The fact that you cannot see how wrong and crooked this is worries me greatly. I think even Shams would agree to allowing GAA in if they get an almost free stadium.

Shams have agreed to let the GAA in. So have the SDCC. And the DoS. They just arent knocking stands and pulling up foundations to accomodate a full pitch. the unreasonable bastards.

yeah, don't be absurd dublinfella

Quoteother sports THAT FIT IN THE STADIUM

What's your point? Do you not think soccer pitches are lost in the grassy bit in the middle of atletics tracks? Methinks its you that has the problem with sports other than your own, well no - with one type of sport.

And another question - when Shamrock Rovers fail as a business again, as they no doubt will, what will we do with the useless 10,000 seater soccer only stadium in Tallaght?

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 22, 2007, 01:55:21 PM

Quoteother sports THAT FIT IN THE STADIUM

What's your point? Do you not think soccer pitches are lost in the grassy bit in the middle of atletics tracks? Methinks its you that has the problem with sports other than your own, well no - with one type of sport.

And another question - when Shamrock Rovers fail as a business again, as they no doubt will, what will we do with the useless 10,000 seater soccer only stadium in Tallaght?

tallaght town FC can play there. They can build houses up on the pitches in Old Bawn then. Everyones a winner!

Lads there is no point engaging this lad in debate, he made up his mind long ago that this was about keeping soccer out rather then wanting use of the stadium. Every bit of new evidence he hears he slots into this theory as if it's perfectly logical.

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 22, 2007, 01:55:21 PM

Quoteother sports THAT FIT IN THE STADIUM

What's your point?

are you for real? my point, as you well know, is that not all sports are automatically entitled to use all municipal facilities. they have to pysically be able to be played there. soccer and athletics can be mixed, and rugby usually can go in there too. but not golf. or swimming. or sailing

the tallaght site is too smallfor a full size GAA pitch and a meaningful capacity stadium. thats the DoS and SDCC position. however soccer, rugby, underage and womens gaelic games are welcome. whats difficult to comprehend?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 08:29:03 PM
[

. however .... rugby, underage and womens gaelic games are welcome.

Since when and says who? other than you of course  :D ;D ;D :D

Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2007, 08:33:12 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 08:29:03 PM
[

. however .... rugby, underage and womens gaelic games are welcome.

Since when and says who? other than you of course  :D ;D ;D :D

the minister, the chairman of rovers, even Kennedy from TD made some statement about 'what use is a ground for the u16's'

in the rush to get offended in all this people have overlooked the fact that the GAA are not actually excluded from the stadium if they can physically fit the game in. despite what danny lynch has been feeding humphries and breheny this week.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 08:41:45 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2007, 08:33:12 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 08:29:03 PM
[

. however .... rugby, underage and womens gaelic games are welcome.

Since when and says who? other than you of course  :D ;D ;D :D

the minister, the chairman of rovers, even Kennedy from TD

In other words Anybody except the landowners  - (i.e the local Council not Shamrock Beggers >:(

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 08:29:03 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 22, 2007, 01:55:21 PM

Quoteother sports THAT FIT IN THE STADIUM

What's your point?

are you for real? my point, as you well know, is that not all sports are automatically entitled to use all municipal facilities. they have to pysically be able to be played there. soccer and athletics can be mixed, and rugby usually can go in there too. but not golf. or swimming. or sailing

the tallaght site is too big for a full size GAA pitch and a meaningful capacity stadium. thats the DoS and SDCC position. however soccer, rugby, underage and womens gaelic games are welcome. whats difficult to comprehend?

If it's too big then why can't they have sailing, are you anti sailing aswell?

Went round to the girls house (northside of Dublin) on Saturday night to meet her folks and have a grand slap up meal. Had a great time to be honest but wouldn't exactly want to live with them if you know what I mean; I've some self respect. Then she says to me the next day, "what about me going aound to yours?", feck off says I, what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine aswell"

Give the feckers Tallaght, what comes around goes around

Quote from: ardal on March 22, 2007, 10:10:20 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 08:29:03 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 22, 2007, 01:55:21 PM

Quoteother sports THAT FIT IN THE STADIUM

What's your point?

are you for real? my point, as you well know, is that not all sports are automatically entitled to use all municipal facilities. they have to pysically be able to be played there. soccer and athletics can be mixed, and rugby usually can go in there too. but not golf. or swimming. or sailing

the tallaght site is too big for a full size GAA pitch and a meaningful capacity stadium. thats the DoS and SDCC position. however soccer, rugby, underage and womens gaelic games are welcome. whats difficult to comprehend?

If it's too big then why can't they have sailing, are you anti sailing aswell?

Went round to the girls house (northside of Dublin) on Saturday night to meet her folks and have a grand slap up meal. Had a great time to be honest but wouldn't exactly want to live with them if you know what I mean; I've some self respect. Then she says to me the next day, "what about me going aound to yours?", feck off says I, what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine aswell"

Give the feckers Tallaght, what comes around goes around

ardal, isnt that not exactly the attitude the GAA through TD are taking here? we got our funding, and we are having yours as well. we can share with you but you cant share with us because of rule 42.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 10:25:27 PM

Quote from: ardal on March 22, 2007, 10:10:20 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 08:29:03 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 22, 2007, 01:55:21 PM

Quoteother sports THAT FIT IN THE STADIUM

What's your point?

are you for real? my point, as you well know, is that not all sports are automatically entitled to use all municipal facilities. they have to pysically be able to be played there. soccer and athletics can be mixed, and rugby usually can go in there too. but not golf. or swimming. or sailing

the tallaght site is too big for a full size GAA pitch and a meaningful capacity stadium. thats the DoS and SDCC position. however soccer, rugby, underage and womens gaelic games are welcome. whats difficult to comprehend?

If it's too big then why can't they have sailing, are you anti sailing aswell?

Went round to the girls house (northside of Dublin) on Saturday night to meet her folks and have a grand slap up meal. Had a great time to be honest but wouldn't exactly want to live with them if you know what I mean; I've some self respect. Then she says to me the next day, "what about me going aound to yours?", feck off says I, what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine aswell"

Give the feckers Tallaght, what comes around goes around

ardal, isnt that not exactly the attitude the GAA through TD are taking here? we got our funding, and we are having yours as well. we can share with you but you cant share with us because of rule 42.

Nope, I'd imagine that'd be the viewpoint of your average innocent unaware joe blogg on the streets if given a simple summary of events.
Nor do I pretend to represent the GAA but I would be happy to see  an episode wereby other sporting  organistations refused to reciprecate the gaa's gesture by opening their stadia to them. Yep, this would serve my individual purpose

You've still failed to answer numerous other questions from other posters, but please tell me why the "tallaght site it too big for a GAA pitch"?

Quote from: ardal on March 22, 2007, 10:32:58 PM


Nope, I'd imagine that'd be the viewpoint of your everage innocent unaware joe blogg on the streets if given a simple summary of events.

You've still failed to answer numerous other questions from other posters, but please tell me why the "tallaght site it too big for a GAA pitch"?

yeah, facts are funny like that.  ::)

it was a typo, now fixed

out of interest, a blog entry on the saga, possibly a rovers fans

http://nanotech.lemonup.com/Albert-White-The-Tallaght-Stadium-Saga-continues/ (http://nanotech.lemonup.com/Albert-White-The-Tallaght-Stadium-Saga-continues/)

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 10:37:05 PM

Quote from: ardal on March 22, 2007, 10:32:58 PM


Nope, I'd imagine that'd be the viewpoint of your everage innocent unaware joe blogg on the streets if given a simple summary of events.

You've still failed to answer numerous other questions from other posters, but please tell me why the "tallaght site it too big for a GAA pitch"?

yeah, facts are funny like that.  ::)

it was a typo, now fixed

out of interest, a blog entry on the saga, possibly a rovers fans

http://nanotech.lemonup.com/Albert-White-The-Tallaght-Stadium-Saga-continues/ (http://nanotech.lemonup.com/Albert-White-The-Tallaght-Stadium-Saga-continues/)

I know Albert White. Next time I see him I must point out that Tom Humphries isn't a GAA journalist.


edit: I just read the rest of that. He has less of a clue than you do dublinlad. I don't think I'll talk to him at all.

Lads argueing against Roversfella (at least be honest) is like trying to get George Bush admit he did wrong.
Wasting yer time

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 10:37:05 PM
[out of interest, a blog entry on the saga, possibly a rovers fans

http://nanotech.lemonup.com/Albert-White-The-Tallaght-Stadium-Saga-continues/ (http://nanotech.lemonup.com/Albert-White-The-Tallaght-Stadium-Saga-continues/)

There are more holes in this than there is in a block of swiss cheese. The rules of the GAA regarding Rule 42 have no bearing on this case. GAA pitches are owned by the clubs not the government so it is their decision who they do or do not let play on them, and the fact they OWN land in Rathcoole is also irrelevant

Nowhere in the article does it mention that the decision was changed from allowing the GAA in to excluding then at the whim of O'Donoughue to allocate funding. If anyone can take this seriously they have to be even more narrow-minded than dublinfella

Deal me in, spot on, of course you're wasting your breath. Dublinfella wants 'his' stadium built and if that means the GAA getting fucked over he couldnt care less, he's convinced himself TD's case is about keeping soccer out when the uses of a stadium that size in such a prime location for the GAA in south dublin are obvious to anyone.

Have to laugh at the number of soccer fans who can't tell the difference between grant aid towards a project, therefore owning something, and getting a stadium built for you and being a key tennant. The differences are glaring, but never underestimate how blind someone can be if their soccer team might have a sniff of a free dig out. Astounding really. the only logical arguement for not letting the GAA in was if Pats moved in as well, the pitch would be in use an awful lot if it hosted two eircom league clubs but they're now staying put.

does anyone know what kind of lease rovers are going to sign on this pitch. will it be like shelboures in tolka (another County coucil owned field in this case dublin corpoation )one that they have now sold to Ossie kilkenny? where by the use of the field has passed completly out of sporting ownership? and guess what he want to put up there . at least bohemians are selling out their fans without any help from the corpo.

I would have thought rovers main objection to having GAA sized pitch , would be the lack of 'atmosphere' in the ground etc for soccer matches. Lets face it, a large field and small pitch in the middle would dilute the atmos/noise
and also rovers fans predominatly hate GAA (I know plenty who like it but the older pure soccer ones are in the majority here imo)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 23, 2007, 12:49:46 PM
I would have thought rovers main objection to having GAA sized pitch , would be the lack of 'atmosphere' in the ground etc for soccer matches.

Nah, that would be more down to the lack of people at games. The size of the pitch isn't gonna affect that!

I doubt the minister has made this decision because of the possible threat to atmosphere at Rovers matches.

What's his reasoning? We're just supposed to take his word for it, sit back and be left out.  It was all agreed until he put his oar in, the least he can do is explain the thinking behind it.

If this is a public stadium is there provision for  a running track or any other athletic facilities ?????

Quote from: Deal_Me_In on March 23, 2007, 10:48:55 AM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 22, 2007, 10:37:05 PM
[out of interest, a blog entry on the saga, possibly a rovers fans

http://nanotech.lemonup.com/Albert-White-The-Tallaght-Stadium-Saga-continues/ (http://nanotech.lemonup.com/Albert-White-The-Tallaght-Stadium-Saga-continues/)

There are more holes in this than there is in a block of swiss cheese. The rules of the GAA regarding Rule 42 have no bearing on this case. GAA pitches are owned by the clubs not the government so it is their decision who they do or do not let play on them, and the fact they OWN land in Rathcoole is also irrelevant

Nowhere in the article does it mention that the decision was changed from allowing the GAA in to excluding then at the whim of O'Donoughue to allocate funding. If anyone can take this seriously they have to be even more narrow-minded than dublinfella

the change proposed by the GAA clubs to the council and provisionally accepted was explicitly conditional on funds still being available. it turns out that they werent, so the council unanimiously  reverted to the original stadium design. TD's entire case rests on the timescale that that decision was taken under.

his point on rathcoole is central to the ministers stance.his attitude has always been that the gaa have been given land nearby and he has offered funding towords its development. TD have their own facilities and never professed any need to upgrade. if the area needs a gaa stadium they have a site, the GAA "cant have it all", its another sports turn. to still claim ignorance of his position is baffling

and the GAA were never 'excluded'. using that term is a deliberate misinterpretation of the position the minister has taken. which it seems is hardening his stance.

Quote from: rosnarun on March 23, 2007, 11:01:51 AM
does anyone know what kind of lease rovers are going to sign on this pitch. will it be like shelboures in tolka (another County coucil owned field in this case dublin corpoation )one that they have now sold to Ossie kilkenny? where by the use of the field has passed completly out of sporting ownership? and guess what he want to put up there . at least bohemians are selling out their fans without any help from the corpo.

shels have sold ossie kilkenny an option on the lease. the stadium site is due for rezoning in 2010 regardless.

bohemians are a members club who voted yes to a cash plus stadium for dalymount deal offered to them by a property company, much like is happeining in golf clubs up and down the country.  'selling out the fans'? ie the ones who voted in favour of the deal? thats profound ignorance of what you are talking about.

Quote from: tayto on March 23, 2007, 01:21:26 PM
I doubt the minister has made this decision because of the possible threat to atmosphere at Rovers matches.

What's his reasoning? We're just supposed to take his word for it, sit back and be left out.  It was all agreed until he put his oar in, the least he can do is explain the thinking behind it.

wasnt talking about odonoghue
just an observation on why rovers fans like dublinfella dont want gaa sharing the 'municipal' stadium!

also- golf clubs?
Last time I looked, golf in general is not exactly a multi spectator sport for anything other then the major tournaments.
Even then they wouldnt have that many fans - about as many as would go to a rovers game I suppose (a few hundred)

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 23, 2007, 02:27:53 PM

Quote from: tayto on March 23, 2007, 01:21:26 PM
I doubt the minister has made this decision because of the possible threat to atmosphere at Rovers matches.

What's his reasoning? We're just supposed to take his word for it, sit back and be left out.  It was all agreed until he put his oar in, the least he can do is explain the thinking behind it.

wasnt talking about odonoghue
just an observation on why rovers fans like dublinfella dont want gaa sharing the 'municipal' stadium!

also- golf clubs?
Last time I looked, golf in general is not exactly a multi spectator sport for anything other then the major tournaments.
Even then they wouldnt have that many fans - about as many as would go to a rovers game I suppose (a few hundred)

im not a Rovers fan. try harder.

Rovers have stated they have no problem sharing with the GAA, in fact they will be. The problem is demolishing the stadium and having a bastardised 2,000 seater. But you know this. So why persist with a line you know to be wrong? Because Danny Lynch says so?

and to say rovers get 'a few hundred' is infantile.

and what type of rezoning do you think ozzie is going to go for ? It hardly going to be in the intrests of Sport or is he going to creat a municipal stadium there too either way shels dont give a toss.
sure thememebrs that turned up at the bohs meeting grabbed all the money but how many of their fans are going to walk out to their new stadium since there is no parking or public transport  about half the ragbag selection that go to games now. then well see who feel sold out

Quote from: dublinfella on March 23, 2007, 02:31:19 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 23, 2007, 02:27:53 PM
wasnt talking about odonoghue
just an observation on why rovers fans like dublinfella dont want gaa sharing the 'municipal' stadium!
also- golf clubs?
Last time I looked, golf in general is not exactly a multi spectator sport for anything other then the major tournaments.
Even then they wouldnt have that many fans - about as many as would go to a rovers game I suppose (a few hundred)

im not a Rovers fan. try harder.
Rovers have stated they have no problem sharing with the GAA, in fact they will be. The problem is demolishing the stadium and having a bastardised 2,000 seater. But you know this. So why persist with a line you know to be wrong? Because Danny Lynch says so?
and to say rovers get 'a few hundred' is infantile.

You know thats not true!
Nope again - rovers have huge problems sharing a stadium with GAA - why else are you off on your hobby horse and why else would they refuse to welcome a municipal stadium that is closed to a certain section of sports.
Dont really know much about Danny lynch - no relation so again wrong.
I think a few hundred would be accurate enough...

are you trying to win the 'wrong' lotto?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 23, 2007, 02:31:19 PM
im not a Rovers fan. try harder.

Well you sure as hell are spending a lot of time defending them Dublinfella.
Ok so if not a Rovers fan you must just be a soccer fan who has it in for the GAA?

You will deny this of course but you ARE one of the above

and a nob! : }

Quote from: dublinfella on March 23, 2007, 01:54:30 PM

....his point on rathcoole is central to the ministers stance.his attitude has always been that the gaa have been given land nearby  .....

For F *** sake cut the crap.
The Dublin County Board BOUGHT land near Rathcoole from the County Council.
PLEASE NOTE B O U G H T[/b] not G I V E N.
I know thats a foreign concept to a soccer eejit like Roversfella.
I understand there is no access to these lands till the Council build a road but they are having trouble doing so as it is intended that the same road will give access to lands they have earmarked for a Traveller Site.

"shels have sold ossie kilkenny an option on the lease. the stadium site is due for rezoning in 2010 regardless.

bohemians are a members club who voted yes to a cash plus stadium for dalymount deal offered to them by a property company, much like is happeining in golf clubs up and down the country.  'selling out the fans'? ie the ones who voted in favour of the deal? thats profound ignorance of what you are talking about."


shels got e600,000 taxpayers money to upgrade tolka, its soon lgoing to be an apt block. likewise bohs got e750,000 for dalymount soon to go the same way.  they should be made pay that money back.....dublinfells soccer clubs have been flogging their grounds for years now, their a joke

Quote from: magickingdom on March 25, 2007, 10:27:14 PM
"shels have sold ossie kilkenny an option on the lease. the stadium site is due for rezoning in 2010 regardless.

bohemians are a members club who voted yes to a cash plus stadium for dalymount deal offered to them by a property company, much like is happeining in golf clubs up and down the country.  'selling out the fans'? ie the ones who voted in favour of the deal? thats profound ignorance of what you are talking about."


shels got e600,000 taxpayers money to upgrade tolka, its soon lgoing to be an apt block. likewise bohs got e750,000 for dalymount soon to go the same way.  they should be made pay that money back.....dublinfells soccer clubs have been flogging their grounds for years now, their a joke

and Laois, Kerry, Kildare etc who are talking about selling their county grounds arent doing the exact same thing? why when soccer do it its money grabbing but when the GAA do it its great business accumen? and when the GAA take state money its the lotto and when soccer take it its directly from the excehquer? do i smell hypocricy?

if you are going to lift a line from the tribune, think it through....

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 12:45:14 AM

Quote from: magickingdom on March 25, 2007, 10:27:14 PM
"shels have sold ossie kilkenny an option on the lease. the stadium site is due for rezoning in 2010 regardless.

bohemians are a members club who voted yes to a cash plus stadium for dalymount deal offered to them by a property company, much like is happeining in golf clubs up and down the country.  'selling out the fans'? ie the ones who voted in favour of the deal? thats profound ignorance of what you are talking about."


shels got e600,000 taxpayers money to upgrade tolka, its soon lgoing to be an apt block. likewise bohs got e750,000 for dalymount soon to go the same way.  they should be made pay that money back.....dublinfells soccer clubs have been flogging their grounds for years now, their a joke

and Laois, Kerry, Kildare etc who are talking about selling their county grounds arent doing the exact same thing? why when soccer do it its money grabbing but when the GAA do it its great business accumen? and when the GAA take state money its the lotto and when soccer take it its directly from the excehquer? do i smell hypocricy?

if you are going to lift a line from the tribune, think it through....

the article in question only referred to Croke Park, but then again its not uncommon for you to take something and completely twist it to suit your arguments. And what an excellent it was too by, Dave Hannigan who is a soccer journalist, is he not.

Now, wheres Albert White when you need him......

but while we're at it, give us details about the grounds you mentioned roversfan. Particularly Laois, where they've just had a development in the old car park (read 'field') out front. Perhaps you can tell us all what plans they have for their pitch, and their plans to 'sell' it. Or you wouldn't be just picking false facts from the air just to try and back up your pathetic arguments would you?

The only ground I know of for sure thats being sold off is Cusack Park, Clare, and anyone thats been there in the last 10 years knows that it hasn't had a penny put into it from any quarter.

Try again roversman.

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 26, 2007, 09:00:50 AM
... the article in question only referred to Croke Park ...

Got a link to this, BT?

"and Laois, Kerry, Kildare etc who are talking about selling their county grounds arent doing the exact same thing? why when soccer do it its money grabbing but when the GAA do it its great business accumen? and when the GAA take state money its the lotto and when soccer take it its directly from the excehquer? do i smell hypocricy?

if you are going to lift a line from the tribune, think it through...."



i've already explained my line of thought on this so for the last time dublinfella: the soccer clubs involved are professional soccer clubs, they should not get any taxpayers money. i've previously said i'm alll for giving money to amateur soccer. the gaa clubs are amateur...

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 26, 2007, 09:00:50 AM
but while we're at it, give us details about the grounds you mentioned roversfan. Particularly Laois, where they've just had a development in the old car park (read 'field') out front. Perhaps you can tell us all what plans they have for their pitch, and their plans to 'sell' it.

Good question. Don't expect an answer though.

Quote from: Hardy on March 26, 2007, 11:17:37 AM

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 26, 2007, 09:00:50 AM
... the article in question only referred to Croke Park ...

Got a link to this, BT?

tribune.ie still shows last weeks paper. Not sure what day they update it. I'll keep an eye out for it and if it appears I'll post a link.

"Got a link to this, BT?"


yesterdays tribune, excellent article. anyone who reads it will also see why john o donoghue will not lose his seat over his tallaght strategy..

Thanks boys.

Quote from: magickingdom on March 26, 2007, 11:22:47 AM
"and Laois, Kerry, Kildare etc who are talking about selling their county grounds arent doing the exact same thing? why when soccer do it its money grabbing but when the GAA do it its great business accumen? and when the GAA take state money its the lotto and when soccer take it its directly from the excehquer? do i smell hypocricy?

if you are going to lift a line from the tribune, think it through...."



i've already explained my line of thought on this so for the last time dublinfella: the soccer clubs involved are professional soccer clubs, they should not get any taxpayers money. i've previously said i'm alll for giving money to amateur soccer. the gaa clubs are amateur...

you are avoiding the question. why is it ok for the GAA to do deals with property players involving stadiums plus cash for existing sites but some form of scam when soccer clubs do the exact same thing?

can we avoid the clichéd profesional versus amateur nonsense for a moment. they clearly are entitled to capital grants regardless of your opinion on the subject. as an aside it was iinteresting to hear in court that TD have 2 full time staff. thats 2 more than Shamrock Rovers. who are the 'commercial' and 'professional' entity.

Im getting at the utter hypocricy people on this board have when it comes to soccer.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 01:01:14 PM
you are avoiding the question.

well you should know, given your own expertise at doing likewise.

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 26, 2007, 01:11:02 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 01:01:14 PM
you are avoiding the question.

well you should know, given your own expertise at doing likewise.

so I am inventing the fact that Kildare, Kerry and iirc Monaghan and a few others are in the process/discussions about selling major grounds to property players?

There was a big discussion about it.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 01:32:59 PM

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 26, 2007, 01:11:02 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 01:01:14 PM
you are avoiding the question.

well you should know, given your own expertise at doing likewise.

so I am inventing the fact that Kildare, Kerry and iirc Monaghan and a few others are in the process/discussions about selling major grounds to property players?

There was a big discussion about it.

you mentioned Laois, so 'yes', you invented it.

I believe John O Donoghue has fucked this up Dublinfella not the GAA.  According to yesterdays sindo T Davis and S Rovers were doing a deal until the ministers intervention.  The GAA has only had 19 million of tax payers money with 114 coming from the lotto tickets that we all buy in the wee shop on the donegall derry border, not a tax but a voluntary purchase / donation by the people.  

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 01:01:14 PM
TD have 2 full time staff. thats 2 more than Shamrock Rovers. who are the 'commercial' and 'professional' entity.

You're a bit confused, I think. Surely the fact that TD are providing employment or, more to the point, that Shambolic Rovers are not*, reinforces the argument against subsidising this sports-entertainment business setup.

You're fast and loose with the allegations of hypocrisy and accusations of avoiding the question . Since you're not a man to avoid the question, remind me again where you answered these questions of mine (from page 5 of this thread):

- Why should Shamrock Rovers be given a stadium (almost) free for their exclusive use?
- Why won't every other League of Ireland club then apply for the same from their local authority?
- Won't they have a case for a discrimination suit if they're refused, given that one of their competitors in a commercial enterprise was singled out to receive capital funding from the state, to the commercial disadvantage of every other participant in the market?
- What criteria have been applied to the public subvention  process that result in Shamrock Rovers emerging as the sole sports club selected to receive almost full public funding for their capital projects?
- (What happens when) our club decides to take a case for discrimination when Cork Co. Co. (as they undoubtedly will) refuse our application for a free stadium under the same criteria.?

* apart from payments to part-time players for second jobs – people who have to be paid to take part in their sport. I'll be charitable and refrain from wondering out loud about the P30 returns.

yet again the silence is deafening.

come on roverslad, what about it? Lets have answers to Hardy's questions.

I think dublinrovers fella makes a valid point that some of you might wish to clarify...

imo
the question was
if Clare, Kildare - and I am sure Laois was a slip of the fingers - wish to sell their grounds to developers for big bucks , before relocating to sites not too far away
whay is that different to Bohs etc selling up and getting the cash


I belive the answer to what people object to is that bohs etc received gov/specific funding for ground improvements etc.
These were either not done or if they were , and Bohs sell up - surely that is a huge waste of tax payers money.

The GAA grounds for sale - Clare/kildare etc did not (to my knowledge) receive funding from the Gov etc - but any funding they had was from GAA HQ as is what GAA does with its annual gate receipts - plough it back into grounds and playing development throughout the country.
Therefore no waste of taxpayers money.
As the local GAA funded most of this, and own their grounds, I cannot see any problem for them selling current grounds and banking profits - to be used in local GAA games development.


I agree that bohs/rovers etc all should have to pay back what funding they squandered wastefully.

I could be wrong with my assumptions but that would be my take on the matter

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 26, 2007, 03:22:28 PM
I think dublinrovers fella makes a valid point that some of you might wish to clarify...

imo
the question was
if Clare, Kildare - and I am sure Laois was a slip of the fingers - wish to sell their grounds to developers for big bucks , before relocating to sites not too far away
whay is that different to Bohs etc selling up and getting the cash


I belive the answer to what people object to is that bohs etc received gov/specific funding for ground improvements etc.
These were either not done or if they were , and Bohs sell up - surely that is a huge waste of tax payers money.

The GAA grounds for sale - Clare/kildare etc did not (to my knowledge) receive funding from the Gov etc - but any funding they had was from GAA HQ as is what GAA does with its annual gate receipts - plough it back into grounds and playing development throughout the country.
Therefore no waste of taxpayers money.
As the local GAA funded most of this, and own their grounds, I cannot see any problem for them selling current grounds and banking profits - to be used in local GAA games development.


I agree that bohs/rovers etc all should have to pay back what funding they squandered wastefully.

I could be wrong with my assumptions but that would be my take on the matter

lynch bhoy (I have serious issues addressing anyone with 'bhoy' as part of their handle but I'll make an exception this once), since you are championing roversman's cause, tell us this, since when is O'Moore Park for sale? Newbridge and Cusack Park are 2 of the most decrepid stadia out there so perhaps you can detail the government funding each has recieved in the last 20 years. I'd go beyond that but I reckon in 20 years or thereabouts one could be deemed to have gotten fair use out of their ground to have justified any funding to that point. And, is Newbridge for sale? I recall Waterford contemplating selling Fraher Field but deciding against it for the reason that an all-Ireland hurling final was played there back in the day. I think thats whats they call morals.

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 26, 2007, 03:30:23 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 26, 2007, 03:22:28 PM
I think dublinrovers fella makes a valid point that some of you might wish to clarify...

imo
the question was
if Clare, Kildare - and I am sure Laois was a slip of the fingers - wish to sell their grounds to developers for big bucks , before relocating to sites not too far away
whay is that different to Bohs etc selling up and getting the cash
I belive the answer to what people object to is that bohs etc received gov/specific funding for ground improvements etc.
These were either not done or if they were , and Bohs sell up - surely that is a huge waste of tax payers money.
The GAA grounds for sale - Clare/kildare etc did not (to my knowledge) receive funding from the Gov etc - but any funding they had was from GAA HQ as is what GAA does with its annual gate receipts - plough it back into grounds and playing development throughout the country.
Therefore no waste of taxpayers money.
As the local GAA funded most of this, and own their grounds, I cannot see any problem for them selling current grounds and banking profits - to be used in local GAA games development.
I agree that bohs/rovers etc all should have to pay back what funding they squandered wastefully.
I could be wrong with my assumptions but that would be my take on the matter

lynch bhoy (I have serious issues addressing anyone with 'bhoy' as part of their handle but I'll make an exception this once), since you are championing roversman's cause, tell us this, since when is O'Moore Park for sale? Newbridge and Cusack Park are 2 of the most decrepid stadia out there so perhaps you can detail the government funding each has recieved in the last 20 years. I'd go beyond that but I reckon in 20 years or thereabouts one could be deemed to have gotten fair use out of their ground to have justified any funding to that point. And, is Newbridge for sale? I recall Waterford contemplating selling Fraher Field but deciding against it for the reason that an all-Ireland hurling final was played there back in the day. I think thats whats they call morals.

Not shire why you dont like my moniker here - hardly offensive
anyhow  - if you read what I wrote, I was doing anything BUT championing Dubroverfellas cause!
Quite the opposite I thought..

bottlethrower,  i dont live on the internet. not getting a reply immediatly doenst mean im hiding, its just that, well, im not online. grow up.

Hardy, Rovers have a deal. Thats that. Its binding. They give SDCC the land, SDCC finish the ground, they get anchor tenent status. Deal with it. I presume its a combination of FF 'owing them one' over the milltown debacle and SDCC wanting to have a professional soccer club in their new county. They struck a good deal and i say fair play.

You are contradicting yourself. Now Rovers are to be punsihed for not being 'commercial' enough and having a volunteer setup. Again, childish stuff. And Rovers are tax compliant, which is more than most GAA clubs. Do your club pay VAT on gate reciepts? Tax 'expenses'? Glass houses on the tax issue big time.

Waterford Utd play in a municipal ground and have done for years. There wasnt a rush to follow them so that line of thought is redundant.

The free stadium line has been debunked totally by now.

Lynchbhoy, thats exactly what I was getting at. Laois was a mistake, hands up. But the substantive point is there. County boards are doing the same as Bohs, but they are somehow scamming. The level of funding Boihs got is exactly in line with all major GAA projects, and i find it very hard to believe no public funding went into the stadia possibly for the chop. its a specious argument and tbh shows how the GAA spin machine is clutching at straws now.

redhandfan. according to Shamrock Rovers there never was an agreement. There was a meeting 5 years ago where TD proposed something to the SRFC chairman, but it was rejected out of hand.

Jaysus Roversfella this is getting tedious.

according to the sindo yesterday there was df

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 05:18:37 PM
bottlethrower,  i dont live on the internet. not getting a reply immediatly doenst mean im hiding, its just .

Hardy, Rovers have a deal. . They give SDCC the land,

More lying crap -- the land belongs and has for years to Sth Dublin county Council.
Shams SOLD thier land back in the 1980s.
GET OFF THE STAGE YA SPOOFER

Caught in more lies. Some feckin neck coming back for more all the time. Jesus wept.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 26, 2007, 06:02:54 PM

More lying crap -- the land belongs and has for years to Sth Dublin county Council.
Shams SOLD thier land back in the 1980s.
GET OFF THE STAGE YA SPOOFER

the land was to be given back to SDCC in return for completion of the stadium. is the PR chorus denying this now? Are you claiming Shamrock Rovers never owned the site? And you call me a spoofer?  ???

and Rovers sold f**k all. anyone on this site actually remember the KRAM events? very strange interpretation of the events if you think the club itself sold the ground.

the immaturity on this site is appaling sometimes. the basics of the story are that SDCC and SRFC struck a deal to return the land in return for completion of the stadium. TD objected to this and here we are. are people actually going to deny this?  ::)

even when TD lay out their case in the High Court debunking some of the consensus on this site (Rovers getting a free stadium being one, the stadium capacity not  being reduced is another) people just keep repeating the mantra. Pathetic stuff.

After pages and pages of tit for tat some people arguing with me clearly have no idea of the background to this. Rossfan, you clearly arent stupid, how can you be so wrong on this basic tenent of the case after all the press this week?

" Do your club pay VAT on gate reciepts?"


what are you talking about? there is no vat on gate receipts ffs.

Quote from: magickingdom on March 26, 2007, 08:52:26 PM
" Do your club pay VAT on gate reciepts?"


what are you talking about? there is no vat on gate receipts ffs.

there is now.....

(Edit - excuse the gobbledegook that previously preceded this post - finger trouble again).

QuoteThe free stadium line has been debunked totally by now.

Fingers in ears and na-na-na-na-na again, is it?

You still haven't explained to me how SR qualify for a free stadium for their exclusive use and why my club should be refused equal treatment or what are the criteria that apply to the disbursement of such largesse. Or how the government can justify anti-competitive subsidies for individual players in a commercial market (as the League of Ireland, or whatever it's called this week, is).

Waterford United's tenancy of the RSC, or municipal stadiums for multiple uses, are not the point, as you know, of course.

And I'm not contradicting myself. And why are you asking me does my club pay VAT on gate receipts? My club has no history of tax defaulting, debt evasion, serial liquidation or asset stripping. There is no reason to suspect that they would not pay their taxes. Shamrock Rovers, on the other hand, have form.

Sorry - double post.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 08:30:34 PM

the land was to be given back to SDCC in return for completion of the stadium. is the PR chorus denying this now? Are you claiming Shamrock Rovers never owned the site? ........
and Rovers sold f**k all. .... you think the club itself sold the ground.
. Rossfan, you clearly arent stupid, how can you be so wrong on this basic tenent of the case after all the press this week?

ONE -SDCC recovered the LEASE on the site they gave a limited company who owned Shams to build a Stadium.They took it back because the thing had stalled for years.
SDCC then went through the Local Authority version of planning to complete the Stadium. This entailed seeking submissions from the public and making a decision in light of the submissions. The end result was the Councillors agreed with the GAA submission that the Free Municipal Stadium should also include the major sport of Gaelic Games. Then enter the Kerry B*******s.
THREE - Shams or their owners at the time SOLD the Milltown lands for money which wasnt put back into the game - unlike the GAA sales you have a problem with.
FOUR - Thanks for the complement - I wish I could return it but you believe an incorrect version of the facts and as for what you read in papers -- FFS man - wise up.
TWO-Shamrock NEVER OWNED THE LAND IN TALLAGHT - they got a lease of a site to build a Stadium.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 05:18:37 PM
But the substantive point is there. County boards are doing the same as Bohs, but they are somehow scamming.

I repeat, give me an example of  a county board who have recently acquired a grant (or any form of government aid) for stadium development and are now looking at selling that ground.

QuoteRovers sold f**k all. anyone on this site actually remember the KRAM events? very strange interpretation of the events if you think the club itself sold the ground.

yes I remember KRAM and they way rovers through their owner  sold their ground . It may not have been done for the good of shamrock rovers PLC. but the kilcoynes owned the company so were well within their rights to sell it. Its just that SR are not within their rifghts to keep coming back looking for free stadiums to the cost of all other sports as the sports capital spending budget is very limited

So when is the ruling on this expected? Will be very interesting. I'm convinced the work could be mostly finished by now if the minister haddnt let this go to court.

QuoteDo your club pay VAT on gate reciepts?

Most GAA clubs have or should have charitable status so would not have to return VAT on gate receipts. That is because GAA clubs put the money back into their communities - not into the pockets of some washed up failed pro soccer players.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 26, 2007, 05:18:37 PM
Waterford Utd play in a municipal ground and have done for years. There wasnt a rush to follow them so that line of thought is redundant.

The free stadium line has been debunked totally by now.

Lynchbhoy, thats exactly what I was getting at. Laois was a mistake, hands up. But the substantive point is there. County boards are doing the same as Bohs, but they are somehow scamming. The level of funding Boihs got is exactly in line with all major GAA projects, and i find it very hard to believe no public funding went into the stadia possibly for the chop. its a specious argument and tbh shows how the GAA spin machine is clutching at straws now.

Waterfords Regional Sports grounds can cater for Soccer, Rugby, Gaelic games and athletics - from recollection.
This is the kind of example that we SHOULD be following for the Tallaght 'municipal' sports stadium.
By not wanting to 'groundshare' with Gaelic Games (do Athletics not also get a chance to get a track installed here too - if not thats another huge oversight) - this is de facto roverswanting a ground (free) for themselves is it not?
under the guise of a 'community' stadium!
As for your points on county boards selling GAA grounds being similar to soccer clubs selling stadiums/grounds etc - it is similar as in these grounds are sold.
Thats where the comparison ends.
You abe being more than a bit devious by putting in the wording 'they are somehow scamming'
You want this to be the case, you are doing he media type spin on it yourself by throwing it out there into the mix, with no substantiation or proof - let alone that is not the case and most definitely untrue.
Also your implication seems to rely on the thread like premise that is
Soccer clubs and GAA clubs all got money from the gov.
Therefore if they sell their grounds they are all equal.
NO, no and a paisley-esque no again.

Soccer clubs obtained individual grants I believe - for upgrading etc of their own individual club grounds.
The GAA received gov grants of 19Million that went directly into croke park.
Now if the GAA were selling croker, you would have a case and this would be parity for your examples.
However the individual county boards are responsible for their own grounds, they raise money for these and on occasion may get grants from the GAA centrally.
This money comes from gate receipts etc - not the gov.
So you are being either disengenuois or deliberately deceitful to support your claims.
Which now on these front are quite obviously very WRONG.
If there is no record of public fundin having gone into these stadia, if there are no reports on public funding etc - then there was no public funding. You are the only person spinning anything here. Or attempting to!

So I expect you will retract your accusations and accept that when they sell off these stadia, the soccer clubs will re-imburse the Gov to the tune of the full amount of the grants received previously.

I'd like athletics track and so on installed in the tallaght stadium, but I would prefer if the GAA were to gain planning permission in rathcoole and play any Gaelic games there.

Quote from: tayto on March 27, 2007, 10:17:04 AM
So when is the ruling on this expected? Will be very interesting. I'm convinced the work could be mostly finished by now if the minister haddnt let this go to court.

Friday. They get a decision on whether they can take a full judicial review.

the work would have been finished on a soccer stadium but not the gaa version as planning etc would have to be redone. that being the whole problem the minister has.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2007, 10:35:05 AM

I'd like athletics track and so on installed in the tallaght stadium, but I would prefer if the GAA were to gain planning permission in rathcoole and play any Gaelic games there.

im not bothered getting into the whole lot, but i had to laugh that individual clubs and county boards dont apply for and get grants. if thats the level im dealing with, there really is no point.

the spin that the GAA get less than soccer from the state is actually sinister in its ingratitude.

but on the final point, ask yourself why, 11 years later, pp hasnt been sought for rathcoole? remember the ministers offer of funds to develop it that were rejected? pull at that thread and you have one of my main sticking points over the DCB and their role in all this.

Quotethat being the whole problem the minister has.

Ah, that's why its taken so long for this years lotto funding to be announced......

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 12:40:17 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2007, 10:35:05 AM

I'd like athletics track and so on installed in the tallaght stadium, but I would prefer if the GAA were to gain planning permission in rathcoole and play any Gaelic games there.

im not bothered getting into the whole lot, but i had to laugh that individual clubs and county boards dont apply for and get grants. if thats the level im dealing with, there really is no point.

the spin that the GAA get less than soccer from the state is actually sinister in its ingratitude.

but on the final point, ask yourself why, 11 years later, pp hasnt been sought for rathcoole? remember the ministers offer of funds to develop it that were rejected? pull at that thread and you have one of my main sticking points over the DCB and their role in all this.

Because SDCC dragged out the issue of access for 10 years  and PP was reject on the access issue ,perhaps?

Quote from: Gnevin on March 27, 2007, 12:47:02 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 12:40:17 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2007, 10:35:05 AM

I'd like athletics track and so on installed in the tallaght stadium, but I would prefer if the GAA were to gain planning permission in rathcoole and play any Gaelic games there.

im not bothered getting into the whole lot, but i had to laugh that individual clubs and county boards dont apply for and get grants. if thats the level im dealing with, there really is no point.

the spin that the GAA get less than soccer from the state is actually sinister in its ingratitude.

but on the final point, ask yourself why, 11 years later, pp hasnt been sought for rathcoole? remember the ministers offer of funds to develop it that were rejected? pull at that thread and you have one of my main sticking points over the DCB and their role in all this.

Because SDCC dragged out the issue of access for 10 years  and PP was reject on the access issue ,perhaps?

thats not it. they delayed the access because the DCB hadnt signalled what they planned on doing with the site. has anyone seen a plan, even an architects sketch of whats planned? thought not. after 10 years sitting on prime land, no-one appears to have done a thing.

what do you think will happen to this land if the magnificent 2,000 seater 'southside parnell park' is procured for free?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 12:54:10 PM

Quote from: Gnevin on March 27, 2007, 12:47:02 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 12:40:17 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2007, 10:35:05 AM

I'd like athletics track and so on installed in the tallaght stadium, but I would prefer if the GAA were to gain planning permission in rathcoole and play any Gaelic games there.

im not bothered getting into the whole lot, but i had to laugh that individual clubs and county boards dont apply for and get grants. if thats the level im dealing with, there really is no point.

the spin that the GAA get less than soccer from the state is actually sinister in its ingratitude.

but on the final point, ask yourself why, 11 years later, pp hasnt been sought for rathcoole? remember the ministers offer of funds to develop it that were rejected? pull at that thread and you have one of my main sticking points over the DCB and their role in all this.

Because SDCC dragged out the issue of access for 10 years  and PP was reject on the access issue ,perhaps?

thats not it. they delayed the access because the DCB hadnt signalled what they planned on doing with the site. has anyone seen a plan, even an architects sketch of whats planned? thought not. after 10 years sitting on prime land, no-one appears to have done a thing.

what do you think will happen to this land if the magnificent 2,000 seater 'southside parnell park' is procured for free?

It is and alway has been intended to be a center of excellence ,lets not forget that DCB offered to build SR stadium for them , on the condition it could be used by Gaelic Games

[Edited]
Thought you might get a good laugh at some of the comments on these threads from some group of Shamrock Rovers fans who belong to some "Ultras" lunatic brigade.
On a completely unrelated topic Rovers have a serious hooligan problem, which is generally regarded to be the worst of any LOI club.
Check out youtube.com and see their dust up outside the Hill 16 pub.



http://www.srfcultrasforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2616

http://www.srfcultrasforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2650

Quote from: Bord na Mona man on March 27, 2007, 01:08:15 PM
Thought you might get a good laugh at some of the comments on these threads from some hooligan styled Shamrock Rovers group:  ;D

http://www.srfcultrasforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2616

http://www.srfcultrasforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2650

is that not the group that sued the herald for calling them hooligans? careful now.

just when you thought it couldnt get more childish

someone emailed this to me, interesting to see they have finally made a statement on the issue.

http://www.shamrockrovers.ie/pressrelease.php?subaction=showfull&id=1174993917&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10& (http://www.shamrockrovers.ie/pressrelease.php?subaction=showfull&id=1174993917&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10&)

discuss

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 01:44:35 PM
is that not the group that sued the herald for calling them hooligans? careful now.

Shamrock Rovers ultras?
Yep hooligans alright, I had a mate who played with Rovers a few years back so went to a few games.
The Rovers fans I was in with were the lowest common denominator. absolute vile, vicious scum.

Rovers couldnt pay my mates wages as they were skint so he went to another eircom league team so he could keep up his mortgage payments and had a pigs head thrown at him next time he played rovers.
Classy bunch.
Not surprise at those links at all.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 12:40:17 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2007, 10:35:05 AM

I'd like athletics track and so on installed in the tallaght stadium, but I would prefer if the GAA were to gain planning permission in rathcoole and play any Gaelic games there.

im not bothered getting into the whole lot, but i had to laugh that individual clubs and county boards dont apply for and get grants. if thats the level im dealing with, there really is no point.

the spin that the GAA get less than soccer from the state is actually sinister in its ingratitude.

but on the final point, ask yourself why, 11 years later, pp hasnt been sought for rathcoole? remember the ministers offer of funds to develop it that were rejected? pull at that thread and you have one of my main sticking points over the DCB and their role in all this.

are you mental or something?

GAA CLubs do not apply for grants etc to the Gov or local councils (any grants are obtained from GAA sources from GAA generated funds)
your point is so far away from the truth it is laughable!
Take your head out of your proverbial!

You are the one spinning here - its why people are responding , as they cannot allow such deceipt and lies to exist unchallenged.
You may be able to fool yourself, but in the big bad world - reality exists and cannot be 'spun over' !

I think the Planning permission question has been accurately answered by GNevin

Quote from: dubnut on March 27, 2007, 01:57:54 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 01:44:35 PM
is that not the group that sued the herald for calling them hooligans? careful now.

Shamrock Rovers ultras?
Yep hooligans alright,

are you saying that named supporters club were involved?

just bear in mind that the rovers ultras have won legal action for just those allegations against people with bigger legal departments and budgets than this site.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 03:31:06 PM

Quote from: dubnut on March 27, 2007, 01:57:54 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 01:44:35 PM
is that not the group that sued the herald for calling them hooligans? careful now.

Shamrock Rovers ultras?
Yep hooligans alright,

are you saying that named supporters club were involved?
just bear in mind that the rovers ultras have won legal action for just those allegations against people with bigger legal departments and budgets than this site.

oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh threats now !
big and clever - up there with smoking and swearing

just cos people couldnt prove it, doesnt mean that it didnt happen (allegedly)
:D

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2007, 03:40:54 PM


oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh threats now !
big and clever - up there with smoking and swearing

just cos people couldnt prove it, doesnt mean that it didnt happen (allegedly)
:D

its not threats. im just saying that they have sued and won against the o'reilly press for those allegations.

its a sign of the immaturity on this site that pointing out that those allegations have landed other people in trouble would be construed as a threat where as every other forum in the world would take it as sensible advice and if neccesary the mods act on it.

if this site isnt populated by 16 year olds i despair.

Quote
http://www.shamrockrovers.ie/pressrelease.php?subaction=showfull&id=1174993917&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10& (http://www.shamrockrovers.ie/pressrelease.php?subaction=showfull&id=1174993917&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10&)

discuss

"Shamrock Rovers is a community-based, not-for profit club that is owned and run by its members. In that respect it's much like a GAA club, but we offer even more to the community."

This quote says it all yeah offer more than clubs with  20 + teams , in the community for 50 + years , playing 3/4 codes of sport for all ages groups

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 03:31:06 PM
are you saying that named supporters club were involved?
just bear in mind that the rovers ultras have won legal action for just those allegations against people with bigger legal departments and budgets than this site.

I am saying that they are hooligans in general.
And anyone calling themselves "Shamrock Rovers ultras" are probably knackers of some description.
And this is my own personal opinion and not that of "the site" so why not sue me by pm : }

Quote from: dublinfella on March 27, 2007, 03:58:43 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2007, 03:40:54 PM
oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh threats now !
big and clever - up there with smoking and swearing
just cos people couldnt prove it, doesnt mean that it didnt happen (allegedly)
:D

its not threats. im just saying that they have sued and won against the o'reilly press for those allegations.
its a sign of the immaturity on this site that pointing out that those allegations have landed other people in trouble would be construed as a threat where as every other forum in the world would take it as sensible advice and if neccesary the mods act on it.
if this site isnt populated by 16 year olds i despair.

thing is , just because certain people win cases, it doesnt mean they are not guilty. I dont actually know of the case you are talking about, but there was another high profile case (appeal) last week that ended up with a guy winning, when all and sundry in his area know full well that he is 100% guilty and a vile criminal.
Likewise unless youknow 100% that these people are all innocent, then a lack of proof does not mean that things didnt happen.
Have come across a few wild Sham Rov louts/rioters/looneys who love bragging about their 'mayhemic episodes'

What was said prev would hardly be something to take legal action or to sue against . yer just 'bigging it up' to try and frighten off the criticism.

how old are you. Next thing you'll be telling Dubnit that you'll get yer father over to him....
:D

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 27, 2007, 04:14:23 PM
how old are you. Next thing you'll be telling Dubnit that you'll get yer father over to him....

Dont be having hooligans calling to my house!

QuoteShamrock Rovers is a community-based, not-for profit club that is owned and run by its members. In that respect it's much like a GAA club, but we offer even more to the community

That's as far as I got as well. I mean in fairness, how can they be taken seriously with tripe like that.

Self praise and all that, 12 pages of going in circles, this is great!

Quote from: tayto on March 27, 2007, 04:34:36 PM
Self praise and all that, 12 pages of going in circles, this is great!

have to say I find it quite amusing too

slow day though...

Dublinfellas like yer wan Samara from the ring.
Never stops.
(http://www.dabomb.com.ar/woods/imagenes/2003/030727samararing.jpg)

she looks a bit like the burd that used to stalk me

only a bit better looking...  :-X

Shamrock Rovers Ultras .... oohhh, I'll bet they're well hard....it must be spectacular when it "goes off" between themselves and the Longford Town Headhunters  :D

One of the ... aaaah ... contributors on the site has this as his signature: "No Surrender to the GAA".

That has a certain resonance, no?

Quote from: Hardy on March 27, 2007, 08:30:30 PM
One of the ... aaaah ... contributors on the site has this as his signature: "No Surrender to the GAA".

That has a certain resonance, no?

reminds me of a certain anti gov slogan chanted by the meath farmers at a rally in Trim in the early 80's
???

Lets take a selection of quotes from the site www.srfcultrasforum.com/forum (http://www.srfcultrasforum.com/forum)

'humphries is a ****,bit of luck hel get a smack of a bus'

'What amazes me about Humphries is that he passes himself off as a ''sports'' columnist, while being one of the nastiest bogball bigots loose today. He bizarrely follows the football team around to qualifiers abroad writing ''colour'' pieces. ****.'

'more bigoted nonsence from this arsehole... why doesnt he f**k off and choke on a hang sangwich.'

'  f**k THE GAA '

'Lets not let these assholes get away with printing complete lies.'

'Thing that pisses me off so much about these articles, are that they make us out to be the greedy party in they're effort to find some "high moral ground"........ WANKERS '

'Humphries is a noxious bigted bogball ****'

'Tom Humphries is a fat Marino **** and what whatever shite he writes in the papers makes no difference to the court hearing. I hope you choke on your next suckling pig you fat bigot.'

'Bigotry, Racism, Sectarianism have no place in sport. Ban the GAA.'

'F**K OFF GAA SCUM'

'NSGAA - founded in 1884 by an Anti-Semite.'


What a lovely bunch. I see that the so-called 'Dublinfella' mixes with some quality folk.

So eloquent to ... ha ha ha .... so juvenile, sad thing is they're probably in their 30s.

enough there to close that site down i would have thought.

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 27, 2007, 04:33:26 PM

QuoteShamrock Rovers is a community-based, not-for profit club that is owned and run by its members. In that respect it's much like a GAA club, but we offer even more to the community

That's as far as I got as well. I mean in fairness, how can they be taken seriously with tripe like that.

I played under-9 soccer with the person who made that comment (and before you ask, no, I didn't make it to under-10, thankfully). The thing is, he wouldn't have a clue what a GAA club offers to the community. He never had any involvement with, or exposure to any of the clubs in the locality. He and his family (nice enough people if I recall) are all died-in-the-wool soccer people. So to have made a comment like that without backing it up with any kind of evidence, is ignorant in the extreme.

from today's Irish Times;

QuoteMadam, - We were quite dismayed by the tone of Tom Humphries's remarks on Shamrock Rovers and the stalled Tallaght stadium development (Locker Room, March 19th).

While complimenting the voluntary community efforts of others, he described Rovers as "a professional soccer club, a commercial enterprise", completely ignoring the fact that it is a not-for-profit, community-based football club owned and run by its members.

While our first team is professional, the rest of the club is almost exclusively run by volunteers, and our schoolboy section caters for hundreds of youngsters across South Dublin. Shamrock Rovers has also established a range of scholarship schemes offering educational opportunities to students at primary, secondary and third level.

Shamrock Rovers is a model employer and taxpayer. Since its supporters took over in 2005, the club has been run on sound business principles and by the end of this season will have contributed around €500,000 to the national coffers. We even turned a small profit last year which was, as a matter of course, reinvested in the club.

Mr Humphries writes that "nobody feels Rovers have given enough to the community to merit the amount of State aid being allocated" for Tallaght. Considering that our club's package of sporting, educational and employment opportunities are unique, not just in South Dublin but in Irish sport, we would beg to differ. And not just in word but in deed. - Yours, etc,

MARK LYNCH, (On behalf of Shamrock Rovers FC board of directors), Centrepoint Business Park, Dublin 12.

a little more restrained in tone than the comments on the sfultras site.

I like this bit best;

Quote.....completely ignoring the fact that it is a not-for-profit, community-based football club owned and run by its members....

and then

QuoteWe even turned a small profit last year....

I also think this bit is great;

QuoteConsidering that our club's package of sporting, educational and employment opportunities are unique, not just in South Dublin but in Irish sport,

so Shamrock Rovers are unique how? Because they give scholarships? Because they pay their players (surely thats what they mean by employment opportunities)? Aren't they only great.

here is the thread on this from an fearr rua.

http://www.anfearrua.com/db/default.asp?a=topicdisplay&tid=322212 (http://www.anfearrua.com/db/default.asp?a=topicdisplay&tid=322212)

notice the difference in the level of maturity and people actually arguing the point rather than pathetic insults and anti soccer hate.

What anti-soccer hate?

(BTW, for the nth time - how do Shamrock Rovers, of all the clubs in the LOI and of all the other sports clubs of all codes in the country, qualify to have the taxpayer build them a stadium and how do I apply for this type of free infrastructure development for my club? ).

Quotepeople actually arguing the point

This from the serial question avoider!

The GAA and Thomas Davis are right to contest this show of astounding arrogance by the Minister. If Shamrock Rovers are put out they know who to blame and its not the GAA or TD.

Yea, my club could do with a free stadium as well, sher we won't bother building one off our own bat, the government is bound to build every club a free 6000 seater now arent they?

Come to think of it, dublinfella=football lover? surely here cant be two soccer heads that stupid posting on two different GAA forums?

Quote from: Hardy on March 28, 2007, 03:46:55 PM
What anti-soccer hate?

(BTW, for the nth time - how do Shamrock Rovers, of all the clubs in the LOI and of all the other sports clubs of all codes in the country, qualify to have the taxpayer build them a stadium and how do I apply for this type of free infrastructure development for my club? ).

dont know dont care. its not the GAA's business to get involved. and the minister has made it clear that the same level of funding is available for rathcoole.

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2007, 03:49:35 PM

Quotepeople actually arguing the point

This from the serial question avoider!

The GAA and Thomas Davis are right to contest this show of astounding arrogance by the Minister. If Shamrock Rovers are put out they know who to blame and its not the GAA or TD.

do me a f**king favour. TD are bringing a nuiscance case to demand to share a stadium while refusing to share theirs. the change of mind from the SDCC to make the stadium multi sport was always contingent on the funding remaining in place. the dept see no point in building a 2,000 seat ground. all he is doing is sticking to a legally binding deal. how is that arrogant? the hostlilty to a very GAA friendly minister is simply because he said no once  to the gaa and there is a sinking realisation that we dont have the political clout of old. TD are the arrogant ones here, interfering in another sports funding simply to delay a project because they dont have faith in their own ability to win the battle for the youth of tallaght.

so let me get this right, do you think if you keep repeating the same inaccuracies that they become true?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 03:58:17 PM
to demand to share a stadium while refusing to share theirs.

Which stadium do 'they ' not want to share - the new proposed one in rathcoole?
If not
what 'other Gov funded and built stadium' would this be ?

Quote from: tayto on March 28, 2007, 03:54:12 PM
Yea, my club could do with a free stadium as well, sher we won't bother building one off our own bat, the government is bound to build every club a free 6000 seater now arent they?

and still the 'free' stadium line is being peddeled despite TD admitting in court Rovers have put a great deal of money into the facility.

just because you keep saying it doenst make it true.

i refer to the fearr rua thread where a reasonable discussion is happening compared to this sort of deliberate bullshit.

the desperation of people to keep a lie going must be heartening to the Rovers fans. if gaa folk believed they had a real case here they would be unlikely to blatantly troll false information.

Quote from: tayto on March 28, 2007, 04:00:39 PM
so let me get this right, do you think if you keep repeating the same inaccuracies that they become true?

like a 'free' stadium  ::)

what 'innacuracies' have i posted on the case?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 03:58:17 PM
do me a f**king favour.

what was that word you used again? Oh yeah, 'maturity'.

" the hostlilty to a very GAA friendly minister is simply because he said no once  to the gaa and there is a sinking realisation that we dont have the political clout of old"

WE???
Could you please stop suggesting you are a GAA fan / member, its misleading.
You have almost 300 posts and I think every one defending Shamrock rovers V the GAA.

Wheres your detailed predictions for the weekends game, or tonights hurling?

The snippets from the Rovers site would suggest it's a very mature place alright. Ultras, oh please, modelling yourself on right wing English idiots is a clever thing to do. Grow up and stop aping the english.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:02:01 PM

Quote from: tayto on March 28, 2007, 03:54:12 PM
Yea, my club could do with a free stadium as well, sher we won't bother building one off our own bat, the government is bound to build every club a free 6000 seater now arent they?

and still the 'free' stadium line is being peddeled despite TD admitting in court Rovers have put a great deal of money into the facility.
just because you keep saying it doenst make it true.
i refer to the fearr rua thread where a reasonable discussion is happening compared to this sort of deliberate bullshit.
the desperation of people to keep a lie going must be heartening to the Rovers fans. if gaa folk believed they had a real case here they would be unlikely to blatantly troll false information.

As a matter of interest, did the Sham rovs get gov grants for their old/potential stadium - the same way Shels/Bohs etc did in times past?

How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

Quote from: dubnut on March 28, 2007, 04:05:11 PM
" the hostlilty to a very GAA friendly minister is simply because he said no once  to the gaa and there is a sinking realisation that we dont have the political clout of old"

WE???
Could you please stop suggesting you are a GAA fan / member, its misleading.
You have almost 300 posts and I think every one defending Shamrock rovers V the GAA.

Wheres your detailed predictions for the weekends game, or tonights hurling?

Very selective reading. I dont defend rovers. I am critical of the DCB fudging the stadium and the bigger picture of the GAA opening the can of worms of 'groundsharing'. I question who is paying for this especially as the case is practically unwinnable. That money could have been used for good within the GAA, not lining the pockets of barristers. Also im dissapointed with the anti soccer tripe that has appeared here. Its bigotry plain and simple and something we should have left behind years ago. We have no 'right' to play in soccer grounds and the minister is right to tell TD/DCB to piss off and do their own thing.

Quote from: tayto on March 28, 2007, 04:07:55 PM
The snippets from the Rovers site would suggest it's a very mature place alright. Ultras, oh please, modelling yourself on right wing English idiots is a clever thing to do. Grow up and stop aping the english.

The ultra scene started in Italy, to my knowledge there are no ultra groups in England. More ill informed nonsense, this time trying to connect Shamrock Rovers with the extreme right and England.

This anti soccer smear campaign is getting ridicilious. There is plenty to say about the LOI clubs without resorting to the absurd.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 28, 2007, 04:08:58 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:02:01 PM

Quote from: tayto on March 28, 2007, 03:54:12 PM
Yea, my club could do with a free stadium as well, sher we won't bother building one off our own bat, the government is bound to build every club a free 6000 seater now arent they?

and still the 'free' stadium line is being peddeled despite TD admitting in court Rovers have put a great deal of money into the facility.
just because you keep saying it doenst make it true.
i refer to the fearr rua thread where a reasonable discussion is happening compared to this sort of deliberate bullshit.
the desperation of people to keep a lie going must be heartening to the Rovers fans. if gaa folk believed they had a real case here they would be unlikely to blatantly troll false information.

As a matter of interest, did the Sham rovs get gov grants for their old/potential stadium - the same way Shels/Bohs etc did in times past?

How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

Miilltown was knocked long before the lotto/capital grants became available, so no.

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m

The bile directed at TH becasue he dares state the GAA position. Hardly deserving of the utter bile directed at him.

My mistake about the Ultras, still Soccer is going well in Italy isnt it, playing behind closed doors arent they? Why is that again? you cant for a minute pretend there isnt english style chanting at eircom league matches, the same songs with different words and the holigan element is there to. Ah the beautiful game.

Quote from: tayto on March 28, 2007, 04:20:30 PM
The bile directed at TH becasue he dares state the GAA position. Hardly deserving of the utter bile directed at him.

My mistake about the Ultras, still Soccer is going well in Italy isnt it, playing behind closed doors arent they? Why is that again? you cant for a minute pretend there isnt english style chanting at eircom league matches, the same songs with different words and the holigan element is there to. Ah the beautiful game.

the culchies say that about the hill....

TH's article was full of innacuracies. Rovers fans percieve he was part of a conceted campaign from GAA jouro's putting forward a very one sided slant. I presume thats why he is getting the treatment. Because lets face it, soccer jouro's are never attacked here (dolan this week springs to mind)

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:17:46 PM

As a matter of interest, did the Sham rovs get gov grants for their old/potential stadium - the same way Shels/Bohs etc did in times past?

How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

[/quote]

Miilltown was knocked long before the lotto/capital grants became available, so no.

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m
[/quote]
how much will the overall project cost as it currently stands
including the cost of the land..

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:15:09 PM
Very selective reading. I dont defend rovers.

This anti soccer smear campaign is getting ridicilious.

Firstly, yes you do defend Rovers at every opportunity, dont be silly.

Secondly this isnt an anti soccer thing, you will find most people here who argue about this particular topic also discussing soccer on the non gaa site.

Thirdly, I will ask again, where are all your posts re match analysis, predictions etc.
If you are comfortable enough to keep saying "WE" surely you can contribute?
Surely you would want to contribute?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 28, 2007, 04:31:31 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:17:46 PM

As a matter of interest, did the Sham rovs get gov grants for their old/potential stadium - the same way Shels/Bohs etc did in times past?

How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

Miilltown was knocked long before the lotto/capital grants became available, so no.

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m
[/quote]
how much will the overall project cost as it currently stands
including the cost of the land..
[/quote]

before TD's intervention the overall figure was €6m.

On a point of order, this €6m euro you speak of?.......

The reason maintained by Rovers fans and yourself (I will indulge you in making the distinction) that they should qualify for this support is that they are a not for profit community based organistion that is owned by the members. That this entity bears no connection to the ground-selling and tax defaulting entity that existed pre 2005 which we all, GAA and Soccer supporters alike, have a strong dislike for.

So of this €6m euro that was provided, how much of it was cash, how much of it was generated by Rovers as opposed to Geovernment supported, and most importantly, how much of it was contributed since 2005 and the club became this "Not for profit community based organisation?". And, if it was all contributed by this new club which claims to be worthy of support, how did such an organisation generate €6m in the last two years and still have time to "turn a small profit" in the words of their own shareholder?


You can't on the one hand claim that Shamrock Rovers have contributed to this stadium if they did so pre 2005 and on the other hand claim that their appalling record of cheating their players, the state and Irish soccer in general pre 2005 is not applicable because that was a different club under different owners.

Quote from: Lone Shark on March 28, 2007, 04:45:25 PM
On a point of order, this €6m euro you speak of?.......

The reason maintained by Rovers fans and yourself (I will indulge you in making the distinction) that they should qualify for this support is that they are a not for profit community based organistion that is owned by the members. That this entity bears no connection to the ground-selling and tax defaulting entity that existed pre 2005 which we all, GAA and Soccer supporters alike, have a strong dislike for.

So of this €6m euro that was provided, how much of it was cash, how much of it was generated by Rovers as opposed to Geovernment supported, and most importantly, how much of it was contributed since 2005 and the club became this "Not for profit community based organisation?". And, if it was all contributed by this new club which claims to be worthy of support, how did such an organisation generate €6m in the last two years and still have time to "turn a small profit" in the words of their own shareholder?


You can't on the one hand claim that Shamrock Rovers have contributed to this stadium if they did so pre 2005 and on the other hand claim that their appalling record of cheating their players, the state and Irish soccer in general pre 2005 is not applicable because that was a different club under different owners.

again, im not defending rovers, im just asking where this 'free stadium' line came from.

its my understanding that when TD delayed proceedings that the 'new' rovers offered to pay for the whole thing but the SDCC were insistant on continuing with the municipal soccer stadium. so nothing since 2005 by decision of SDCC.

isnt it interesting that TD originally had no problem with the shambles that was rovers coming to tallaght but in 2005 when a members club was formed and started scholarships and various other worthy initiatives that TD decided to hit the courts..... strange coincidence that!!

Quoteisnt it interesting that TD originally had no problem with the shambles that was rovers coming to tallaght but in 2005 when a members club was formed and started scholarships and various other worthy initiatives that TD decided to hit the courts..... strange coincidence that

Fair play to you for not defending Shamrock Rovers here again.

So the answer to Lone Shark's point?

Quote from: magpie seanie on March 28, 2007, 05:02:11 PM

Quoteisnt it interesting that TD originally had no problem with the shambles that was rovers coming to tallaght but in 2005 when a members club was formed and started scholarships and various other worthy initiatives that TD decided to hit the courts..... strange coincidence that

Fair play to you for not defending Shamrock Rovers here again.

my point as you well know is the cop out of a club not even trying to up its game to head off a threat for hearts and minds. rather going legal like spoilt brats, without the backing of senior officials in the club.

there is no conicidence that TD's action was announced after a 'new' rovers emergerd that appear to be a model of how to do run a club.

Quote from: Hardy on March 28, 2007, 05:04:54 PM
So the answer to Lone Shark's point?

Rovers changed ownership after a legal examinership period. This dealt with outstanding debt and the fans undertook to never allow their club trade like that again. A company that changes hands is still the company. So I assume their contribution still stands.

and i answered the 2005 question.

Quote from: Hardy on March 28, 2007, 05:04:54 PM
So the answer to Lone Shark's point?

To be fair to the lad, he did actually answer this.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:58:59 PM
so nothing since 2005 by decision of SDCC.

I've taken all I need to know from this debate. It's a new club when it suits, but the old club counts (only on their terms) when that suits too. Shamrock Rovers, in their current guise, have contributed nothing. Apparently the new club get to claim credit for all the money that was contributed, but get to ignore all the unpaid player wages, unpaid creditors and unpaid tax liability. It's a sweet deal, that's for sure.

You couldnt make it up!!!  ::)

Quote from: Lone Shark on March 28, 2007, 05:13:31 PM



I've taken all I need to know from this debate. It's a new club when it suits, but the old club counts (only on their terms) when that suits too. Shamrock Rovers, in their current guise, have contributed nothing. Apparently the new club get to claim credit for all the money that was contributed, but get to ignore all the unpaid player wages, unpaid creditors and unpaid tax liability. It's a sweet deal, that's for sure.

thats not totally true though. they went through an examinership period whereby they paid all their debts to some creditors and a percentage to others. there are no outstanding debts.

morally a dubious approach, but perfectly legal and above board.

Lets not use moral arguements then.  Go for it Thomas Davis and every further municipal funded soccor pitch put in place in Ireland there should be a gaelic one alongside er.  Ha Ha

Again Dublinfella, I'm going to take you at face value and accept your assertion that you are not a Rovers fan, and are in fact a GAA member.

Surely by conceding that their approach is "morally dubious" (I would call it morally wrong, but that's merely my personal values, clearly not reflected in the law of the land), surely once you concede this it then becomes incorrect to say that Shamrock Rovers in their current incarnation contributed to the stadium?

You'll notice I've stayed out of this debate so far, largely because I'm not sufficiently equipped with facts to really get involved, but I fail to see how you can, as a supposedly neutral individual merely putting across your point of view, argue that Shamrock Rovers are both (1) a community organisation that deserve this due to their underage teams/scholarships etc. and (2) have contributed to the Stadium, such as it is at the moment?

Surely you either maintain that the pre and post 2005 Rovers clubs are either the same entity, in which case the current Rovers team carries the burden of a long track record of tax defaulting and being unworthy of any kind of state support due to their likelihood to perform some trick equivalent to making off in the night with the loot, or else you maintain that they are different entities, in which case the Rovers you are arguing for have not in fact put one red cent into this project?

I'm trying to leave off my GAA hat for a moment and at least see your point of view, but until you explain this one to me it's hard for me to see you as anything other than a Rovers fan who can't see beyond his own club or else plain and simple a WUM.

as far as im concerned they are the same entity, have legally dealt with their previous debts through a mechanism open to all failing businessess, have contributed to the stadium and latterly profoundly changed their way of doing things.

SDCC have structured the deal to ensure that there is no loot for rovers to misuse even if their internal mechanisms would now allow it.

i dont neccesarily see the zero sum nature of the deal you paint.

its a sad trait on this site that anyone who questions GAA orthadoxy is labelled a plant, either a soccer fan or west brit or somesuch. its intellectual laziness to assume that everyone in the organisation agrees with each other all the time. see the fearr rua thread where the majority of posters are very much opposed to TD's actions.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 06:00:25 PMits a sad trait on this site that anyone who questions GAA orthadoxy is labelled a plant, either a soccer fan or west brit or somesuch. its intellectual laziness to assume that everyone in the organisation agrees with each other all the time. see the fearr rua thread where the majority of posters are very much opposed to TD's actions.

In fairness soccerfella, you're not exactly doing yourself any favours by coming onto a GAA Board and almost exclusively talking about Shamrock Rovers. You rarely if ever talk about the Dublin footballers or hurlers and I had to go to post number 55 of your most recent posts there to find one that dealt with either. If you want to stamp out the fire stop throwing bleedin petrol on it!!!

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 06:00:25 PM
as far as im concerned they are the same entity, have legally dealt with their previous debts through a mechanism open to all failing businessess, have contributed to the stadium and latterly profoundly changed their way of doing things.

SDCC have structured the deal to ensure that there is no loot for rovers to misuse even if their internal mechanisms would now allow it.

i dont neccesarily see the zero sum nature of the deal you paint.

its a sad trait on this site that anyone who questions GAA orthadoxy is labelled a plant, either a soccer fan or west brit or somesuch. its intellectual laziness to assume that everyone in the organisation agrees with each other all the time. see the fearr rua thread where the majority of posters are very much opposed to TD's actions.

The difference is that you seem to be arguing not that Rovers are legally within their rights, but that they are on the moral high ground as well. I personally fail to see how the fact that they successfully exploited a legal loophole suddenly makes it "right" that they get handed a stadium for their exclusive use.

The debate on this site, or so I understood it, was not about the legal minutae but instead about the rights and wrongs of the issue. Using a legal trick to score points does not really enhance your case if it's the right or wrong that you're debating.

On the other hand, the legal aspect of all this will become clear on Friday anyway, by more learned minds than those on here, be they on either side of the fence.

Quote from: Lone Shark on March 28, 2007, 06:29:23 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 06:00:25 PM
as far as im concerned they are the same entity, have legally dealt with their previous debts through a mechanism open to all failing businessess, have contributed to the stadium and latterly profoundly changed their way of doing things.

SDCC have structured the deal to ensure that there is no loot for rovers to misuse even if their internal mechanisms would now allow it.

i dont neccesarily see the zero sum nature of the deal you paint.

its a sad trait on this site that anyone who questions GAA orthadoxy is labelled a plant, either a soccer fan or west brit or somesuch. its intellectual laziness to assume that everyone in the organisation agrees with each other all the time. see the fearr rua thread where the majority of posters are very much opposed to TD's actions.

The difference is that you seem to be arguing not that Rovers are legally within their rights, but that they are on the moral high ground as well. I personally fail to see how the fact that they successfully exploited a legal loophole suddenly makes it "right" that they get handed a stadium for their exclusive use.

The debate on this site, or so I understood it, was not about the legal minutae but instead about the rights and wrongs of the issue. Using a legal trick to score points does not really enhance your case if it's the right or wrong that you're debating.

On the other hand, the legal aspect of all this will become clear on Friday anyway, by more learned minds than those on here, be they on either side of the fence.

but its not for their exclusive use. other soccer teams, underage internationals, rugby and underage gaelic games are pencilled in.

how at this point of proceedings can these blatant innacuracies still be trotted out?

Thats one word, his overall point is watertight.

Quote from: tayto on March 28, 2007, 06:40:36 PM
Thats one word, his overall point is watertight.

his overall point is based on the misconception that a: the stadium is for rovers only and b: that the GAA have been excluded.

these, and other, innacuracies doing the rounds profoundly change the percieved rights and wrongs of TD's case.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:17:46 PM
How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m

Of which €1.5 or €1.9m -came from Lotto Grants.
And guess what GAA lads - something to really piss you off - the Council had to pay almost €1.5m to get the lease back !!!!!! :( :( (Seriously  source- my "mole" in the SD Council.)
So the Lotto pays for 75 or 95% of the work done;then they get €1.5m to get off the stage and then they get a free Stadium which is estimated will cost €11m. I suspect with the Irish and Government way of doing things that will be about €15m+ before this saga is over.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2007, 07:25:50 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:17:46 PM
How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m

Of which €1.5 or €1.9m -came from Lotto Grants.
And guess what GAA lads - something to really piss you off - the Council had to pay almost €1.5m to get the lease back !!!!!! :( :( (Seriously  source- my "mole" in the SD Council.)
So the Lotto pays for 75 or 95% of the work done;then they get €1.5m to get off the stage and then they get a free Stadium which is estimated will cost €11m. I suspect with the Irish and Government way of doing things that will be about €15m+ before this saga is over.

in 2005 SDCC said it would cost €4m to finish the project.

where is €15m coming from? a mate of yours?  ;D

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 06:48:54 PM

Quote from: tayto on March 28, 2007, 06:40:36 PM
Thats one word, his overall point is watertight.

his overall point is based on the misconception that a: the stadium is for rovers only and b: that the GAA have been excluded.

these, and other, innacuracies doing the rounds profoundly change the percieved rights and wrongs of TD's case.

I will accept that I erroneously used the word exclusive when in actual fact I meant primary. For the record, the GAA have not been excluded theoretically, however they have been excluded from using for any of the games for which it actually would be most useful - Dublin club games on the southside, or lower profile intercounty matches for the purposes of evangelising on the other side of the city. I don't know the local situation in South Dublin enough to know if it will actually be used for U-14 games, however I doubt that seperate posts would be put in place for games like that - but again, not being in the know, I would defer to the local clubs.


My point was merely that while you feel that the morally correct way to proceed in this matter is for TD to step aside and for the state to continue to build this stadium for the PRIMARY use of Shamrock Rovers. You used their previous contribution to bolster this. I merely wished to point out that while this may somehow be an argument in the legal sense, in the moral sense it certainly isn't, since those contributions were made by a morally as well as fiscally bankrupt entity. 

What a mess . Sport is about participation getting people involved especially at local level .In a city with where green space is at a premium the best use is to accomodate all possible sports in this new facility . Dunlinfella I dont have time to read all 15 pages but can you tell me is it possible to accomodate both and still have a decent capacity.? John O D has been very generous to Clubs in South Kerry as has been highlighted in the press but is for me he and his Governmenmt are a disgrace when it comes to sport. look at the  money has been wasted in the Bertie Bowl.,the bullshit prior to the GAA congress in Galway sports facilities in schools

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 08:41:07 PM

in 2005 SDCC said it would cost €4m to finish the project.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Spin me good man. €4m my arse  HA ha ha ha

LANSDOWNE 50,000 EST COST €365M
Talladome      6,000   - €365m divide by 9 = €40m.

Quote from: johnpower on March 28, 2007, 09:59:42 PM
. Dunlinfella I dont have time to read all 15 pages but can you tell me is it possible to accomodate both and still have a decent capacity.?

No. The capacity would be cut from 10,000 to 2,000 to fit a full size GAA pitch.

To small to be any use to Rovers or the Dubs.

if you believe Rovers, on the other hand there is a theory that you could do it and not effect the attendance, but fellas me lad dosent believe it.

Quote from: tayto on March 29, 2007, 12:48:43 AM
if you believe Rovers, on the other hand there is a theory that you could do it and not effect the attendance, but fellas me lad dosent believe it.

theory?  ;D

Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2007, 07:25:50 PM
Of which €1.5 or €1.9m -came from Lotto Grants.
And guess what GAA lads - something to really piss you off - the Council had to pay almost €1.5m to get the lease back !!!!!! :( :( (Seriously  source- my "mole" in the SD Council.)
So the Lotto pays for 75 or 95% of the work done;then they get €1.5m to get off the stage and then they get a free Stadium which is estimated will cost €11m. I suspect with the Irish and Government way of doing things that will be about €15m+ before this saga is over.

oh dear. SR don't really have a leg to stand on. do they? Morally at least.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 10:40:29 PM

Quote from: johnpower on March 28, 2007, 09:59:42 PM
. Dunlinfella I dont have time to read all 15 pages but can you tell me is it possible to accomodate both and still have a decent capacity.?

No. The capacity would be cut from 10,000 to 2,000 to fit a full size GAA pitch.

To small to be any use to Rovers or the Dubs.

Yes because that's a common known engineering principal, the bigger the area the less you fit in  ::). It like how if you extend your house into your garden , your houses ends up smaller

Quote from: Gnevin on March 29, 2007, 08:58:37 AM
It like how if you extend your house into your garden , your houses ends up smaller

ahem  ;D

Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2007, 07:25:50 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:17:46 PM
How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m

Of which €1.5 or €1.9m -came from Lotto Grants.
And guess what GAA lads - something to really piss you off - the Council had to pay almost €1.5m to get the lease back !!!!!! :( :( (Seriously  source- my "mole" in the SD Council.)
So the Lotto pays for 75 or 95% of the work done;then they get €1.5m to get off the stage and then they get a free Stadium which is estimated will cost €11m. I suspect with the Irish and Government way of doing things that will be about €15m+ before this saga is over.

If that is accurate then this is a feckin disgrace. Where's my application form a free stadium? i think i'll sell my house, sher the government will build me a new one.

Quote from: tayto on March 29, 2007, 09:08:21 AM
If that is accurate then this is a feckin disgrace. Where's my application form a free stadium? i think i'll sell my house, sher the government will build me a new one.

Don't forget to not pay your taxes, they'll let you off. And if anyone should complain, tell them in your best how-dare-you voice that you've paid all your debts for the last two - not one, TWO! - years

Having read all these pages over the past number of weeks, this is what I see is the reality of the situation.

I am sure we will hear in time how much the project will actually cost - most likely after it is completed and we will then find out the cost over run.
Def 4million euros imo in this age of extortionate building costs and based on all the other stadia/building of structures in recent times,€4m seems way too cheap.

Also, this does look like rovers (all new sham rovs - to avoid confusion with the old sham rovers that owed a lot of money and defaulted on tax etc) have little or no money - and have actually contributed nothing from their own coffers.
What they have contributed is €2M that is mostly and directly from Gov grants.

So this would appear that is is a stadium for nothing.
A municipal stadium that can house ALL SPORTS - is just that.

Its a bit rich- getting a stadium for nothing and dictating as to the dimensions of this and exactly therefore who can play in it.
Obv rovers want the stadium to stay the same size - not because the capacity would decrease (as the capacity would be increased with bigger stands I would imagine) but a smaller pitch means the grounds are useless for senior GAA games - therefore effectively meaning that the stadium and grounds are de facto Sham rovers grounds alone.
As rugby is in its infancy out there, there wont be a whole lot of usage required of this stadium.

I know Dublinfella is arguing differently, but I think in the last couple of pages, the real truth has been discovered.
I also understand why ODonoghue is against this - imo its because the work is not far off completion and any changes will mean more money , time and a pain in his erse.
Same goes for rovers. Its painful to be so close to having 'their' stadium, only to be dashed at the 11th hour, and they are long awaiting a new home.
I certainly do not think that Thomas Davis etc are too bothered about 'competing' for kids as has been mentioned, as the club had to extend its grounds recently to cater for the upsurge in players/teams/kids especially in the underage sections.
Dublin county board obv object to the fact that Rovers are getting a free ground - esp as the ground is being deemed a 'municipal ' and 'sport for all' resource.
To say otherwise is being extremely disingenuous.

I've noticed after about 14 - 15 pages of this that DF is suddenly referring to this stadium as a 'Municipal SOCCER Stadium', I thought it was just a plain old municipal stadium, no????

Is this the aforesaid stadium?
(http://www.picsoup.com/images/87057shamrockrovers.jpg)

If so there is room to widen the field for GAA, this would reduce spectator accomodation on that side, but the main stand would still be there. Taking away one side can only halve the capacity at most.
There seems plenty of room to lengthen the field.

Quote from: Gnevin on March 29, 2007, 08:58:37 AM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 10:40:29 PM

Quote from: johnpower on March 28, 2007, 09:59:42 PM
. Dunlinfella I dont have time to read all 15 pages but can you tell me is it possible to accomodate both and still have a decent capacity.?

No. The capacity would be cut from 10,000 to 2,000 to fit a full size GAA pitch.

To small to be any use to Rovers or the Dubs.

Yes because that's a common known engineering principal, the bigger the area the less you fit in  ::). It like how if you extend your house into your garden , your houses ends up smaller

that makes no sense whatsoever. best not to type when drunk i think.

Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2007, 03:12:39 PM
Is this the aforesaid stadium?

(http://f3.yahoofs.com/users/41b13659zc283246d/1b74re2/__sr_/9b82re2.jpg?ph478CGB8lujHV8v)

If so there is room to widen the field for GAA, this would reduce spectator accomodation on that side, but the main stand would still be there. Taking away one side can only halve the capacity at most.
There seems plenty of room to lengthen the field.

there is no image there. but by lenghtening you remove the stands planned for behind the goal. the existing structure would have to go even if you left the non built side open (after lifting the foundations already in place over there) there still wouldnt be enough width for a gaa pitch. so even the stand thats there would be far too wide and only on two sides.

is this still looking like a 'southside parnell park' or a butchering job so that Rovers are forced to look elsewhere longer term as the stadium is of no use to them or anyone?

Sweet holy god let it go rovershooliganfella  ::)

from the image / aerial view displayed - this looks like if could just about accomodate a GAA pitch within regulation width - It looks like it would be much like O'Toole park - where one side of the pitch is very close to the boundary wall.

Certainly there is plenty of room for elongating the pitch to GAA standards (using what I see and withough a tape measure)
and still have enough space to put a stand at either end of the pitch - given the depth of the main stand in the pic , the stands behind the goals would take up a similar amount of room...

I would have to get the width measured to see if this could be of GAA regulation size.

Its a pity the main stand was built already as a full sized pitch and stands ringing the pitch would have been great.
I dont think that this current set up would be in a position to accomodate an athletics track either - which I dont believe is on the agenda - another huge oversight.

if the pitch width cannot take the GAA pitch width, I can then understand why ODonoghue wants to keep this ground the way it is, as it would obv cost quite a bit to pull down the existing stand and build another one.

Maybe those sham rovers volunteers could do it for nothing - GAA Style?

Jesus , get the diggers in to remove the planned stands on the end. No architect could possibly have drawn up other plans by now, only super architect could have done such a feat.  ??? ??? ???

Note you ignore sharkys very valid points that you are a new company when it suits, ie debts, yet want to take credit for the old company when it suits ie, paid for something. Also Rosfan has raised serious doubts about any monies put to the project by SR. So it is indeed, more or less, a free stadium, no?

Quote from: tayto on March 29, 2007, 05:14:01 PM
Jesus , get the diggers in to remove the planned stands on the end. No architect could possibly have drawn up other plans by now, only super architect could have done such a feat.  ??? ??? ???

Christ Tayto, ever heard of planning permission? This is getting surreal.

Quote from: tayto on March 29, 2007, 05:14:01 PM
Note you ignore sharkys very valid points that you are a new company when it suits, ie debts, yet want to take credit for the old company when it suits ie, paid for something. Also Rosfan has raised serious doubts about any monies put to the project by SR. So it is indeed, more or less, a free stadium, no?

the point i was making was that there are certain mantras that have been accepted as fact on this issue by the GAA community. one of which was that the state was funding this 100%. thats at best disputed.

im not denying Rovers have come up trumps here, but some of the stuff printed recently was plain innaccurate.

Christ Dublinfella i've heard of planning alright, surely if the minister and council wanted it planning wouldnt be a minor issue. They managed to get planning for a 50k seater in the middle of ballsbridge i think they would solve this extension ...

Well seems to me the free stadium thing is pretty much accurate, see below ...

Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2007, 07:25:50 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:17:46 PM
How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m

Of which €1.5 or €1.9m -came from Lotto Grants.
And guess what GAA lads - something to really piss you off - the Council had to pay almost €1.5m to get the lease back !!!!!! :( :( (Seriously  source- my "mole" in the SD Council.)
So the Lotto pays for 75 or 95% of the work done;then they get €1.5m to get off the stage and then they get a free Stadium which is estimated will cost €11m. I suspect with the Irish and Government way of doing things that will be about €15m+ before this saga is over.

Quote from: tayto on March 29, 2007, 05:42:20 PM
Christ Dublinfella i've heard of planning alright, surely if the minister and council wanted it planning wouldnt be a minor issue. They managed to get planning for a 50k seater in the middle of ballsbridge i think they would solve this extension ...

but they dont. thats the point. plannig permission is in place for a 10,000 seater ground as per the SD county managers plan. the only delay on this project is a nuiscance suit from a club who have admitted they wont even use the place.

Quote from: tayto on March 29, 2007, 05:42:20 PM
Well seems to me the free stadium thing is pretty much accurate, see below ...

Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2007, 07:25:50 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:17:46 PM
How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m

Of which €1.5 or €1.9m -came from Lotto Grants.
And guess what GAA lads - something to really piss you off - the Council had to pay almost €1.5m to get the lease back !!!!!! :( :( (Seriously  source- my "mole" in the SD Council.)
So the Lotto pays for 75 or 95% of the work done;then they get €1.5m to get off the stage and then they get a free Stadium which is estimated will cost €11m. I suspect with the Irish and Government way of doing things that will be about €15m+ before this saga is over.

So his mole says. That information is a whisper so you will understand me taking it with a pinch of salt. in 2005 the amount announced was €4m to complete it. now its €15+ because a bloke says it on the internet?

Quote from: dublinfella on March 29, 2007, 05:55:04 PM

Quote from: tayto on March 29, 2007, 05:42:20 PM
Christ Dublinfella i've heard of planning alright, surely if the minister and council wanted it planning wouldnt be a minor issue. They managed to get planning for a 50k seater in the middle of ballsbridge i think they would solve this extension ...

but they dont. thats the point. plannig permission is in place for a 10,000 seater ground as per the SD county managers plan. the only delay on this project is a nuiscance suit from a club who have admitted they wont even use the place.

Quote from: tayto on March 29, 2007, 05:42:20 PM
Well seems to me the free stadium thing is pretty much accurate, see below ...

Quote from: Rossfan on March 28, 2007, 07:25:50 PM

Quote from: dublinfella on March 28, 2007, 04:17:46 PM
How much of an investment towards the total cost of the operation have Sham Rovs actually staked?

The figure mentioned of SRFC's financial contribution to date is €2m

Of which €1.5 or €1.9m -came from Lotto Grants.
And guess what GAA lads - something to really piss you off - the Council had to pay almost €1.5m to get the lease back !!!!!! :( :( (Seriously  source- my "mole" in the SD Council.)
So the Lotto pays for 75 or 95% of the work done;then they get €1.5m to get off the stage and then they get a free Stadium which is estimated will cost €11m. I suspect with the Irish and Government way of doing things that will be about €15m+ before this saga is over.

So his mole says. That information is a whisper so you will understand me taking it with a pinch of salt. in 2005 the amount announced was €4m to complete it. now its €15+ because a bloke says it on the internet?

come off it DF
have you ever heard of inflation ?
There is no way now unless you lads all volunteer to do the work for nothing that you will bring in a project for under 10M
I ams sure that it will be closer to 20 the way things have gone in recent years.

Also TD might not need to use the grounds, but they are obv fronting the concerns of the Dublin county board who WOULD use the grounds - if they COULD use the grounds (ie the pitch was big enough). TD would also be playing on it in a championship match I would guarantee you!


Planning perm is granted for a 10k stand - there is no problem with this being altered ...
the stand could remain where it is - in the middle of the pitch with the two ends elongated..
whats the problem there

only issue is if the main stand had to be toppled and re-built.
Still - it would be a great municipal resource for ALL sports in this event, and not just a stadium built for rovers for nothing - and the kids in the area maybe getting the odd game on it out of soccer season.....

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 29, 2007, 06:13:31 PM
come off it DF
have you ever heard of inflation ?
There is no way now unless you lads all volunteer to do the work for nothing that you will bring in a project for under 10M
I ams sure that it will be closer to 20 the way things have gone in recent years.

300% in 2 years? anyway, the contracts are signed, builders are ready to go. the costs have been fixed.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 29, 2007, 06:13:31 PM
Also TD might not need to use the grounds, but they are obv fronting the concerns of the Dublin county board who WOULD use the grounds - if they COULD use the grounds (ie the pitch was big enough). TD would also be playing on it in a championship match I would guarantee you!

but you arent allowed 'front' for others in the Irish court system. you have to prove you are directly affected to sue. this is a profound tenent of our legal system. it was a major balls up by TD to admit this, one apparently the Rovers barrister was all over like a rash. The DCB should be taking this case if the stadium is wanted for the Dubs. Were they even aware TD were taking the case on their behalf?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 29, 2007, 06:13:31 PM
Planning perm is granted for a 10k stand - there is no problem with this being altered ...
the stand could remain where it is - in the middle of the pitch with the two ends elongated..
whats the problem there

big problem with it being altered, planning permission would need to be reapplied for. another 2 years delay (see the pattern in TD delaying this). the stand apparently cannot remain and a gaa pitch be fitted in.

planning permission is for 2 stands of 3,000 and 2 stands of 2,000. remove two and reduce the other 2 and what have you?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 29, 2007, 06:13:31 PM
only issue is if the main stand had to be toppled and re-built.

quite a significant 'issue' surely. you are ignoring the fact that foundations are in place for the entire venue as planned and planning process eould need to be redone and a new stadium designed. so there is quite a great deal more to this than just a bit of tinkering.


and we are still on the 'for nothing' argument.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 29, 2007, 06:13:31 PM

come off it DF
have you ever heard of inflation ?
There is no way now unless you lads all volunteer to do the work for nothing that you will bring in a project for under 10M
I ams sure that it will be closer to 20 the way things have gone in recent years.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to how much volunteering goes on at the 'New' Rovers, not to mention the community spirit!

Quote from: Romeo on March 29, 2007, 08:24:34 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 29, 2007, 06:13:31 PM

come off it DF
have you ever heard of inflation ?
There is no way now unless you lads all volunteer to do the work for nothing that you will bring in a project for under 10M
I ams sure that it will be closer to 20 the way things have gone in recent years.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to how much volunteering goes on at the 'New' Rovers, not to mention the community spirit!

Let's get this straight Romeo - is that you saying explicitly that Shamrock Rovers members will be volunteering their time during the construction of the stadium, with no direct personal quid pro quo? How many people, how many hours and what kind of work are we talking about here?

Either this is very interesting new information, or else I suspect that your point was, well, pointless.

Quote from: dublinfella on March 29, 2007, 06:38:13 PM

300% in 2 years? anyway, the contracts are signed, builders are ready to go. the costs have been fixed.

but you arent allowed 'front' for others in the Irish court system. you have to prove you are directly affected to sue. this is a profound tenent of our legal system. it was a major balls up by TD to admit this, one apparently the Rovers barrister was all over like a rash. The DCB should be taking this case if the stadium is wanted for the Dubs. Were they even aware TD were taking the case on their behalf?

big problem with it being altered, planning permission would need to be reapplied for. another 2 years delay (see the pattern in TD delaying this). the stand apparently cannot remain and a gaa pitch be fitted in.

planning permission is for 2 stands of 3,000 and 2 stands of 2,000. remove two and reduce the other 2 and what have you?

quite a significant 'issue' surely. you are ignoring the fact that foundations are in place for the entire venue as planned and planning process eould need to be redone and a new stadium designed. so there is quite a great deal more to this than just a bit of tinkering.


and we are still on the 'for nothing' argument.
[/quote]

If the prices were fixed 2 years ago, just wait to you see how this price did not indlude etc etc etc and it will not be the 4million you and the rovers lads believe it is.
If this is brought in on that cost - then I will be amazed (as will most of the Dublin's building community) - and I will be dying to know how you managed it! Honestly.
Might not be allowed to 'front' but as part of the same organisation this is not really illegal I suppose - the reasoning all is tied into the last point - to be addressed at the end.
OK with the planning - thats cut and dried, the only alternative for this is having one 3000 and maybe the two 2000 stands at either end - which I believe what you think and will need further planning permission (Would take time but I'd say they would get it).

The crux is with the funding.
If Rovers and gov came out with the line that this is going to be a soccer/rugby stadium that can be used by the community for whatever games /events they wanted - then fair enough.
They are trying to say this is a municipal stadium that all sports can use including Gaelic football- therefore its a public sports ground.

As senior Gaelic football cannot be played in this, it is not an All sports municipal stadium, but a soccer (and potentially rubgy) community stadium.
Lawn bowls and tennis could also be played there, but as they dont take up a whole lot of room, but as the playing surface could never be good enough for them,they are equally excluded.
Likewise cricket and athletics.

The gov realised that they are paying for this project - and I have heard previous financial testimony many months ago saying more or less what Rossfan says about the grants given torovers and that they didnt have a penny to their name themselves - only what had been granted to them.
So the gov know that by building a stadium for this project, it sets a dangerous precedent in the country - with the thoughts of rectification ringing in their tiny minds - creating the 'community/municipal' aspect to the project to try and hide their gaffe.

The GAA obv see this and dont like the lie going out that they are included in this project.
They are not.
Playing kiddies games is damn all. These can be played on almost any green site around Dublin - and freq are (my local area being a prime example where a small 'park' is used by St Thomas Castleknock for all their underage games/training for boys and girls hurling and football) so the stadium is not going to really be used by them - a pure token gesture.

I can understand why rovers fans are peed off with this as they want their own grounds and this hold up is annoying.

The gov should call it what it is - a rovers stadium
Rovers should accept that their funding is completely Gov based.
The gov should help push through the rathcoole planning permission
the gov then should get ready for the onslaught of GAA stadia funding requests.

Quote from: Lone Shark on March 30, 2007, 01:22:08 AM

Quote from: Romeo on March 29, 2007, 08:24:34 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 29, 2007, 06:13:31 PM

come off it DF
have you ever heard of inflation ?
There is no way now unless you lads all volunteer to do the work for nothing that you will bring in a project for under 10M
I ams sure that it will be closer to 20 the way things have gone in recent years.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to how much volunteering goes on at the 'New' Rovers, not to mention the community spirit!

Let's get this straight Romeo - is that you saying explicitly that Shamrock Rovers members will be volunteering their time during the construction of the stadium, with no direct personal quid pro quo? How many people, how many hours and what kind of work are we talking about here?

Either this is very interesting new information, or else I suspect that your point was, well, pointless.

If you were to believe some of the comments, maybe it will happen with all the 'Peace to all men' attitude of the 'New Rovers'

Judicial review granted. 20th April date set.

Seems the judge hasnt fallen for this "new when it suits us" Shamrock Rovers stuff.

There is no way a builder will have fixed there rates 2 years ago. The contract would have been void by now.
The price of steel doubled in 2005/2006.

While I believe Shamrock Rovers are unworthy of such largess, I think the GAA should leave them to it.
Are we too worried about principals over the practical implications?
If the GAA gets its way, I don't think the stadium will be a particularly good asset to have.
There would be too much demand on the facilities from all sides. The pitch would be rubbish with so many games. I believe that trying to put soccer and GAA pitches on the one space will never work.

Remarking the pitch every second night when one code plays a game there, would be a complete pain.
Goal posts would need to be taken constantly erected and taken down since there would (and should) be several teams getting the usage of the facilities. There would be so many logistical problems that I'd much rather stick to having GAA grounds for GAA games and let the others to do their own thing.

Why are people so drawn on this particular site? I think people are more concerned with blocking Rovers, than acquiring an asset (of dubious value) for the GAA. Are there not plenty of other green field site in Dublin where a GAA ground can be built?
There is the Rathcoole project, but I'm sure there could be plenty of other sites that could be used.
Let the precedent be set by Shamrock Rovers. Other GAA projects should then demand almost total funding from local councils. The real injustice would be if GAA projects didn't get the same level of funding.

This case has the resonance of someone who works for a living taking a couch potato to court because they feel he doesn't deserve his social welfare payments. If you are the big dog, you have to get used to these things.

Well i've said it before but Tallaght is much easier to get to then Rathcoole, it'd be as easy for me to get to Parnell Park.

More like someone who works taking the couch potato to court because he's getting a five bedroom house with swimming pool built for him as reward for his incompetitance.

Quote from: tayto on March 30, 2007, 11:48:52 AM
Well i've said it before but Tallaght is much easier to get to then Rathcoole, it'd be as easy for me to get to Parnell Park.

Grand, but Croke Park is easier to get to for Northside soccer fans, but it's hardly reason enough to make it the permanent home for the Irish soccer team?
There are plenty of other green spaces in Tallaght that have nothing on them except shopping trolleys and burnt out cars. Would you settle for a GAA stadium on one of these instead?

bord na mona, its a facility in an area of Dublin where its badly needed. The GAA were told they could be part of it, then that was reneged on. A facility that the GAA have access to is needed and if John O'Donoghue wants to build us a seperate one, well and good, we'll happily leave the other one for whoever else wants it. Thats not on the cards. Rathcoole isn't touted for that use either, and as tayto says, its not a great location for a lot of south dublin to access. Tallaght on the other hand has a multitude of GAA clubs within a 6-7 mile radius.

This issue has nothing to do with Shamrock Rovers. Its to do with the GAA in that locality pushing for what they were once promised.

Quote from: Bord na Mona man on March 30, 2007, 11:53:11 AM

Quote from: tayto on March 30, 2007, 11:48:52 AM
Well i've said it before but Tallaght is much easier to get to then Rathcoole, it'd be as easy for me to get to Parnell Park.

Grand, but Croke Park is easier to get to for Northside soccer fans, but it's hardly reason enough to make it the permanent home for the Irish soccer team?
There are plenty of other green spaces in Tallaght that have nothing on them except shopping trolleys and burnt out cars. Would you settle for a GAA stadium on one of these instead?

But you're not comparing like with like, Croke Park is owned by the GAA this is a municipal faciltiy, dont want to go through this again.

If the DCB get to pay 2 million [a dubious 2 million at that] and get an 11 million stadium from SDCC then i'd be happy enough. But it Won't happen of course, the GAA will have to stump up at least half the cash if not more.

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 30, 2007, 11:53:19 AM
bord na mona, its a facility in an area of Dublin where its badly needed. The GAA were told they could be part of it, then that was reneged on. A facility that the GAA have access to is needed and if John O'Donoghue wants to build us a seperate one, well and good, we'll happily leave the other one for whoever else wants it. Thats not on the cards. Rathcoole isn't touted for that use either, and as tayto says, its not a great location for a lot of south dublin to access. Tallaght on the other hand has a multitude of GAA clubs within a 6-7 mile radius.

This issue has nothing to do with Shamrock Rovers. Its to do with the GAA in that locality pushing for what they were once promised.

Grand, but really I don't see the attraction in this particular site.
By all means put the heat on Zero O'Donoghue and expose his buffoonery, but I'd hope the strategy is to squeeze a better site for GAA purposes, rather than simply to get into the Tallaght site.
I'd hope there is some sort of bargaining going on in the background and that the sole strategy of Dublin GAA is not just to pursue the case via the courts.

At a push, I would have agreed with the original plan of the DCB to take over the site and let Rovers senior team in the odd time, because of the opportunistic value of it and that the GAA would have the running of it. But since then Rovers have been clever in managing to re-invent their image as some sort of caring community based club with all the talk of youth teams and the like playing in the new ground.
The best time to get onto the site was when Rovers were welching on debts, not paying players, falsifying accounts and leaving any unfortunate businesses that dealt with them out of pocket.

"Judicial review granted. 20th April date set.

this will be expensive and lead to further delays so hopefully it will concentrate minds(mainly the ministers) and maybe a solution can be worked out...

The minister might want to keep one on on the election as well ...

Quote from: Bord na Mona man on March 30, 2007, 12:09:13 PM

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 30, 2007, 11:53:19 AM
bord na mona, its a facility in an area of Dublin where its badly needed. The GAA were told they could be part of it, then that was reneged on. A facility that the GAA have access to is needed and if John O'Donoghue wants to build us a seperate one, well and good, we'll happily leave the other one for whoever else wants it. Thats not on the cards. Rathcoole isn't touted for that use either, and as tayto says, its not a great location for a lot of south dublin to access. Tallaght on the other hand has a multitude of GAA clubs within a 6-7 mile radius.

This issue has nothing to do with Shamrock Rovers. Its to do with the GAA in that locality pushing for what they were once promised.

Grand, but really I don't see the attraction in this particular site.
By all means put the heat on Zero O'Donoghue and expose his buffoonery, but I'd hope the strategy is to squeeze a better site for GAA purposes, rather than simply to get into the Tallaght site.
I'd hope there is some sort of bargaining going on in the background and that the sole strategy of Dublin GAA is not just to pursue the case via the courts.

At a push, I would have agreed with the original plan of the DCB to take over the site and let Rovers senior team in the odd time, because of the opportunistic value of it and that the GAA would have the running of it. But since then Rovers have been clever in managing to re-invent their image as some sort of caring community based club with all the talk of youth teams and the like playing in the new ground.
The best time to get onto the site was when Rovers were welching on debts, not paying players, falsifying accounts and leaving any unfortunate businesses that dealt with them out of pocket.

bord na mona, a couple of points.

Firstly, Dublin GAA (via the DCB) have expressed an interest in this site for quite a while and offerred to complete the stadium way back when - pretty much when SR were in the doldrums. That was kyboshed by the SR supporters. So, this isn't a new thing as you imply.

Secondly, why would there be background moves going on? This is a 'municipal' facility. This is a community project, for the community. Do you propose a second such project? Or do you think the GAA should go and ask for their own facility to be built solely for them? The latter won't wash. Why waste taxpayers money on 2 municipal projects, when one will do? How can anyone justify the building of a stadium solely for GAA being funded entirely by the government? Even GAA people would have difficulty not seeing the problems with that.

If Shamrock Rovers have succeeded, to a point, in lifting themselves out of the hell-hole they were in, more power to them. If they are now the self-styled community-friendly entity that they claim to be, they should learn that theres more than them in the community. But, as I say, this whole thing has nothing to do with them. Its to do with the GAA getting what was promised them by the government, and which was then reneged on.

I really don't see where the problem with that is. Its as black and white as can be.

Quote from: tayto on March 30, 2007, 12:22:41 PM
The minister might want to keep one on on the election as well ...

didn't you read the Tribune last weekend? Votes all bought and paid for already....allegedly!!

like i said in an earlier post he wont lose his seat. anyone who reads dave hannigans article in last sundays tiribune will see why (tribune.ie). i dont know if it will have an effect anywhere else....

thanks for reminding me. Hardy, anyone else, here is that article;

Quote
LAST June, St Mary's GAA club in Cahirciveen hit the sports capital grants jackpot for the second consecutive year. Eleven months after being awarded 300,000, they discovered another 180,000 was on its way to help with their clubhouse project. In Fianna Fail's official profile of Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism John O'Donoghue, the only sporting allegiance listed is his membership of St Mary's. A former chairman of the club and subscriber to its lotto draw, the department over which he presides gave his hometown team almost half a million in two rounds, not much less than the whole of Longford received in 2005.

A club in O'Donoghue's constituency of Kerry South enjoying this sort of good fortune via the capital grants system is nothing new. Between 2005 and 2006, the residents of Glenbeigh received 295,000 towards the town's sport hall. With a permanent population of just over 300, they essentially snagged the equivalent of almost a grand per person. Nobody is doubting the denizens of St Mary's and Glenbeigh do good work at the coalface of Irish sport. We are merely pointing out that when castigating the GAA about its apparent lack of gratitude for public money received, O'Donoghue isn't exactly speaking from a position of moral strength.

Every club in the country is supposed to have an equal chance of accessing national lottery funds and improving their facilities through the sports capital grants. However, since O'Donoghue took over the sports portfolio in the summer of 2002, the voters in Kerry South have received an outsized share of the pie every single year.

Even in a nation where pork barrel politics are the norm, the abuse of the system has been startling.

In 2006, 14 different sporting concerns in O'Donoghue's constituency managed to snag just over 1.5m between them. This is more than was given to the entire counties of Monaghan, Louth, Offaly, Roscommon and Sligo. It was double the amount granted to counties Carlow, Laois, Westmeath and Leitrim, and near enough treble what poor Longford got. The worst part is that this sort of imbalance was nothing new. In 2005, the people of Kerry South outdrew 18 of the other 25 counties. A year earlier, the half of the county charged with returning him to Dail Eireann in a few weeks time outscored 17 counties. Anybody seeing a pattern here?

The minister's hectoring of Croke Park about the need to understand "the spirit of fairness and generosity" can hardly be taken seriously when his own bailiwick benefits to such a ridiculous extent from his department's largesse. With a failure rate of nearly 50 per cent among applicants for these grants annually, it's remarkable the people of Kerry South outperform their competitors in other counties on such a consistent basis each year.

Even allowing for their reputation as "cute hoors", this is ridiculous.

Are they that much better at filling in the forms and assuring the inquiring civil servants of their bona fides?

Maybe so. How else do we explain that over the past two years O'Donoghue's constituency of nearly 70,000 people received almost the same amount in grants as Meath, a county with a population of twice that many?

A week before he got into such an unseemly row with the GAA about the amount of public money invested in Croke Park, O'Donoghue proved he's a renaissance man whose interests go beyond sport.

He awarded 20 per cent of all funding for cultural festivals this summer to events in, you guessed it, Kerry South.

Of the 1.4m doled out, this incredibly lucky constituency received 280,000.

That sum surpassed how much Dublin got by almost 100,000. We just hope those benefitting from those stipends can do as good a job showing where the cash was spent as the GAA.

Regardless of whether the grants it received were from lottery or exchequer funds, O'Donoghue need only look out the windows of Leinster House to see where the money went on Jones' Road. Pity he can't say the same about others. Rather than picking fights with an association that can account for every cent it has received towards reconstructing its headquarters, the minister might be better served assuring taxpayers that Shamrock Rovers properly used the 2m or so it received towards the completion of the Tallaght Stadium.

In 2001, Slonepark Company Ltd.

For Shamrock Rovers were awarded £500,000 from the sports capital grants. A year later, they did even better with an allocation of 1.3m. If that money was ever drawn down, can the department assure us it was invested in bricks and mortar? If so, how come the facility was never finished? Can they guarantee that none of the cash was squandered on wages rather than infrastructure? The expenditure of 2m in public money seems a far more worthy subject for O'Donoghue's comment than Thomas Davis' interest in playing there.

After he's done with Rovers, the TD for blessed Kerry South might clarify whether Bohemians have to pay back the nearly 750,000 that club received to improve Dalymount Park since 1999.

That money was given to improve a sportsground and, by extension, contribute to the community. Now it's being turned into housing, surely the beneficiaries owe something to the State? Similarly with Shelbourne's 600,000 in grants when Tolka Park goes the way of the apartment blocks.

When it comes to the public funding of sport, there are plenty of issues needing to be addressed by the minister. Croke Park just isn't one of them.

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 30, 2007, 11:53:19 AM
bord na mona, its a facility in an area of Dublin where its badly needed.

This issue has nothing to do with Shamrock Rovers. Its to do with the GAA in that locality pushing for what they were once promised.

so why have none of them ever tried to get a facility before this came up? this has never been explained properly.

the reality is that the DoS are adament that the facility is soccer only. they will not fund the hybrid ground. so this drags on another year, and even if TD pull it off and win, Rovers still get built the stadium.

and in the meantime all capital grants in the southside  have been suspended. im sure lucan sarsfields are delighted to have their cheque witheld. i have consistantly questioned the strategic value of suing the hand that feeds. and we will have a minimum of another year of this before Rovers get what they were promised. and of course, no-one does anything to move rathcoole along.

(http://www.neodymsystems.com/ring/r_img/remake/hq/ue_samara_emerges2.jpg)

Quote from: dublinfella on March 30, 2007, 02:29:02 PM
so why have none of them ever tried to get a facility before this came up? this has never been explained properly.

I don't understand the question.

10 years ago there was maybe 4 adult teams in my GAA club. Now there are probably 10. The game develops and grows. This growth needs to be facilitated. By facilitated I mean it needs a place where it can be played. At the moment, during the daylight savings months, it wouldn't be uncommon to get 25-30 games a week played in O'Toole Park, the current southside 'equivalent' of Parnell Park. I'm sure being the soccer man that you are that you have no interest in the structures of the games and the various competitions in the various code, so I'll refrain from going there. Suffice it to say, presently the DCB is struggling greatly to get its games played due to lack of places to play them. Just look at all the unfinished competitions every year.

A facility in Tallaght would help greatly.

I cant believe we'rre back to the "they dont really have a need for this facility" arguement, fer jaysus sake.

Quote from: bottlethrower7 on March 30, 2007, 02:57:51 PMSuffice it to say, presently the DCB is struggling greatly to get its games played due to lack of places to play them. Just look at all the unfinished competitions every year.

The lack of venues is certainly not the biggest problem with competitions not getting finished.

lack of referees, and postponment of games for stupid reasons

Quote from: neilthemac on March 30, 2007, 05:27:09 PM
lack of referees, and postponment of games for stupid reasons

and a complete wipe out of fixtures in summer.

Now that this nonsense is to be judicially reviewed maybe it's time the Public Accounts Committee or the Comptroller and Auditor General had a look at the whole process.
Council lease site to Soccer club - rent £10,000 per annum. Soccer club move in and start work.
Soccer club gets grant from Dept of sport. no more money but keep site for another 5 years paying NO rent.
Council pays best part of €1.5m to get their own land back ( FFS !!!!).
GAA (Dublin Co Board) offer to build stadium paying for it themselves. Offer refused - Councillors vote to amend pitch size but Minister wont let them.
So far SDCC has spent about €1.9m,Dept of Sport either €1.5m or 1.9m. General view in the SDCC is that €11m will be needed to finish it.
So €14.4m will be spent by Public Authorities when they could have saved themselves €11m by letting the Dub Co Board build the Stadium.
Seems like criminal waste of public funds to me.

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 something

GAA club win leave to fight single use

SOCCER/Shamrock Rovers' stadium: One of Dublin's oldest GAA clubs have been permitted by the High Court to bring a legal challenge to a decision that the stadium proposed to be the new home of Shamrock Rovers be developed as a soccer-only venue.

The Thomas Davis club of Tallaght want to overturn South Dublin County Council's decision of February 13th, 2006 that the 6,000-seat stadium at Whitestown Way, Tallaght, should be completed for soccer only.

That decision was in accordance with a proposal of the county manager made in 2005. However, after a public consultation process and following a recommendation by the Tallaght Area Committee in November 2005, the manager's proposal was altered to one in favour of a multi-sport stadium, involving the development of a larger pitch suitable for Gaelic games.

The council on December 12th, 2005, unanimously adopted a resolution in favour of that proposal.

However, after the council were told that Minister for Sports John O'Donoghue would provide funding only for a soccer stadium, on February 13th, 2006, they passed a resolution which reverted to the original proposal.

The Thomas Davis club sought leave from the High Court to bring a judicial review challenge to that decision.

In opposing the application, South Dublin County Council and Shamrock Rovers had argued that Thomas Davis had no substantial interest in the matter and were not prejudiced by the decision. It was also argued it was never intended the club would have access to the stadium.

In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill said the 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.

On the face of it, the loss of the possibility of any use of the stadium as a result of the February 2006 decision would appear to be a substantial detriment to the Thomas Davis GAA Club. However, the development, if carried out under the December 12th, 2005, resolution, would have a significant potential benefit to the club, he said.

© 2007 The Irish Times

So Dublinfella, when you first came on here you said they'd be more or less laughed out of court, now no doubt you're conviced the judge is a fool, but he says that have substantial grounds for complaint. Could it be that you're opinions are totally blinkered against the GAA point of view? The way you take every single point as proof that TD are just trying to keep soccer out would  suggest as much.

Seems to me It's time for the mininster to compromise I would have thought. That way Rovers wll get access to the new stadium and Dublin GAA get the use of a stadium in south dublin wihtout having to build a whole new stadium from scratch, it's the sensible option. Otherwise this could drag of for years, the 20th of April date is only to set the format of the judicial review. SORT IT OUT MINISTER!!!

Quote from: dublinfella on March 19, 2007, 05:50:50 PM
Again Deiseach, basic stuff. TD are taking leave for a judicial review, the application was adjourned till tuesday because some emergency case came up. The sumbissions have to at least be heard for the judge to theow it out.There is a significant chance it will be thrown out on Tuesday,with the possibility that the judge will retire for a week to decide if the case has merit enough to warrant a judicial review. I'm more confident than ever that this will be given short shrift as the timewaste that it, especially as it appears TD scored a serious own goal in the opeing submissions.

::)

Thomas Davis statement:

"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."

Executive Committe Thomas Davis GAA club

Quote from: tayto on March 31, 2007, 12:14:01 PM

Thomas Davis statement:

"........"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."

Executive Committe Thomas Davis GAA club

What a reasonable and common sense attitude.?
I notice Soccerfella has vanished :P GOOD RIDDANCE

I was away for the weekend and not online.

My understanding of the judges ruling is that he said that the second vote allowing 'multi sport' usage within TD's parish area means they have an interest in the case, something they werent even arguing.

He also went on to say that he realises the stadium will not be built to GAA size but thats not his call.

All in all a serious result for TD, but to be fair, head scratching logic from the judge. He awarded them a review on a point they didnt raise.

All the judge did was rule TD are entitled to bring a case as they are affected by a soccer ground in theur area, he didnt touch their actual gripe. That comes next where TD have to show how a reversal of a decision back to an original plan is illegal under section 8 planning law, something i still remain highly sceptical they can do.

http://www.fm104.ie/goout.asp?u=http://fm104phoneshow.blogspot.com/

Just something that the new stadium can look forward to

Quote from: dublinfella on April 02, 2007, 12:38:00 AM
I was away for the weekend and not online.

My understanding of the judges ruling is that he said that the second vote allowing 'multi sport' usage within TD's parish area means they have an interest in the case, something they werent even arguing.

He also went on to say that he realises the stadium will not be built to GAA size but thats not his call.

All in all a serious result for TD, but to be fair, head scratching logic from the judge. He awarded them a review on a point they didnt raise.

All the judge did was rule TD are entitled to bring a case as they are affected by a soccer ground in theur area, he didnt touch their actual gripe. That comes next where TD have to show how a reversal of a decision back to an original plan is illegal under section 8 planning law, something i still remain highly sceptical they can do.

head-scratching logic? Yep, but I wouldn't level that accusation at the judge. Your post above on the other hand..........

Hardly surprising that he can put spin on it, he's spun every single point so far. amasing to see. Now TD really don't srtand a chance eh. They've really blown it.

dublinfella, read td's statement and if that not good enough for you and the rest of scamrock rovers to sit down and COMPROMISE then ye deserve every bit of the delay thats coming your way....

Anybody fancy a spot the difference competition?

Jan 28, 2004

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1115376&issue_id=10358

" Sports Minister John O'Donoghue said the landmark decision would bring Ireland's national sporting infrastructure into the 21st century.  He said a decision on Croke Park was entirely a matter for the GAA, but emphasised Gaelic games would be welcome in the new stadium. "

----------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday April 4th 2007

http://www.unison.ie/sportsdesk/stories.php3?ca=13&si=1806046

"I've said it before, agreement was reached originally that this stadium in Tallaght would be a home for Shamrock Rovers. I gave Shamrock Rovers my word that this would be the case. That remains the position. I am not going to break my word because to do so would be quite wrong," he said.


Yeah John, we all know how much your word was worth the first time.
Why is it suddenly so sacred now?

Voters of South Kerry - show solidarity with the GAA and kick him out.

 Indo - 04.04.07
Minister not for turning on Tallaght

Embattled Sports Minister John O'Donoghue has insisted he won't break his word with Shamrock Rovers over the use of the municipal stadium in Tallaght.

A successful application by the Thomas Davis GAA club in Tallaght to the High Court paved the way last week for a judicial review of the terms that govern the use of the stadium.

But the Minister is not concerned about what conclusions the judicial review could draw and has again urged Dublin GAA to forget about Tallaght and look to Rathcoole, where a considerable land bank has been built up.

Speaking in Croke Park at the official opening of the Breaffy International Sports Hotel near Castlebar, Mr O'Donoghue said it was "extraordinary" that he had been portrayed as 'anti-GAA' in some quarters.

The Thomas Davis club had criticised Mr O'Donoghue last week for taking up an "intransigent and untenable position" on the Tallaght stadium and said this would "have to change."

The judicial review will examine the terms of the March 2006 planning permission granted by south Dublin County Council, which allows for a soccer-only facility.

"A judicial review examines the processes by which a decision was made and they will now be examined by the court, and that's fair enough," said O'Donoghue yesterday.

"We are not a part of these proceedings at all. They are between Thomas Davis club and south Dublin Co Council.

"I've said it before, agreement was reached originally that this stadium in Tallaght would be a home for Shamrock Rovers. I gave Shamrock Rovers my word that this would be the case. That remains the position. I am not going to break my word because to do so would be quite wrong," he said.

O'Donoghue reiterated his view that another League of Ireland club would be housed in Tallaght at the exclusion of any GAA activity.

He urged the GAA clubs, and by extension Dublin County Board, to consider developing Rathcoole as an alternative, and promised discussions about possible financial support.

"I have said it again and again - the GAA has 25 or 26 acres at Rathcoole. I'm perfectly prepared to enter into discussions with the GAA, at a time of their choosing, with a view to developing a facility there for Thomas Davis and other GAA clubs in Tallaght.

"I want to ensure that there is an opportunity for Gaelic players in the Tallaght area at the most convenient location, but what I can't do is go back on my word to Shamrock Rovers." He said his relationship with the GAA was "excellent" and he had "no problem whatsoever" with the organisation.

On the subject of criticism over his stance, he was less tolerant. "I come from a GAA background. I was chairman of a local GAA club in Kerry for some years. I'm immersed in the GAA. The criticism of my position from peripheral GAA sources to me seems quite extraordinary.

"That's a personal matter - it is irrelevant in an overall context. What is important here is that we gave our word and we are going to keep it."

Colm Keys


peripheral GAA sources -- best description of kennedy i have ever heard.

this is getting surreal. for a minister of the republic to get threatened by a small club for sticking with a legal agreement with shamrock rovers is hetting sinister. has one politician lent support to the gaa position on this despite intense lobbying? the respose to the herald today from td was pathetic. now their line is john p'donoghuw is irrelevant and hasnt the power to stop the gaa getting in. a week after they abused him for blocking their god given right to shit on soccer.
TD are starting to seriously lose the PR war with this nonsense. people need to take a step back and look at this rationally.


snatter in his little competition is of course ignoring the fact that gaelic games are welcome in the stadium. tedius thing facts.

Soccerfella,

Quotesnatter in his little competition is of course ignoring the fact that gaelic games are welcome in the stadium. tedius thing facts.

So the GAA are welcome in Lansdowne? News to me. Probably news to O'Donoghjue / irfu / fai as well.
If so, how? when the pitch is too small for gaelic games?

If you had bothered to read the first article you would see that "the stadium" refers to lansdowne, not the freebie tallaght you fraudsters are getting.

Explain, oh wise and unblinkered one!

Ah, but I forgot, you never bother to read articles, or deal facts.

dublinroverssoccerfella, were you drunk or just angry when you wrote that?

Davis' a small club? Really? It seems to me like they're doing a fine job of digging in their heels for a 'small' club.

roversman, if you knew anything about the GAA, in terms of the community they're located in, there is no such thing as a small club. But then you don't know anything about the GAA now, do you?

Guys its official, roverssoccerultrasfella has gone over the edge.
Hes on the shamrock rovers ultras thread defending the "Thomas Davis GAC, f**k OFF AND DIE" banners at the rovers games.

Lost the plot altogether

And Thomas David tell the minister to F**K off out of Tallaght

*********************************

SPORTS Minister John O'Donoghue has been accused of being incapable of objectivity over the proposed new stadium in Tallaght.

David Kennedy, a spokesman for local GAA club Thomas Davis, who oppose the proposed development of the arena exclusively for soccer, said they were "beyond considering the Minister's capability of being objective in relation to Tallaght Stadium."

He was responding to a pledge by Minister O'Donoghue that he wouldn't break his word to Shamrock Rovers that the stadium will be for exclusive soccer use.

Thomas Davis have received High Court approval for a full judicial review of the South Dublin County's Council's decision to designate the stadium for soccer only.

Thomas Davis and other GAA clubs in the area want it redeveloped to a sufficient size to also cater for Gaelic Games on a limited basis.

"The community representatives in the area know what the right answer for Tallaght is and also know that the reason it's being held up lies squarely on the shoulders of John O'Donoghue.

"We want the stadium completed for use by Shamrock Rovers and the GAA as soon as possible," Kennedy added. "We don't believe that John O'Donoghue has any part to play in achieving progress and as a consequence, we are not going to waste our time wondering about what his views are."

"god given right to shit on soccer"

ha ha ha ... oh dear oh dear ....

The uses Thomas Davis have for the Tallaght ground, yes that's the municipal facility, are many and glaringly obvious. The high court judge, someone i would imagine is less blinkered then you, has agreed as much. Get it into your thick skull. Just because you want your stadium, somewhat like a spolit child, you should really try and see their point of view.

Incidentally Thomas Davis alone field more teams then Rovers, so technically that'd make them a bigger sporting oganisation then Rovers.

Quote from: neilthemac on April 05, 2007, 09:44:31 AM
And Thomas David tell the minister to F**K off out of Tallaght

*********************************

SPORTS Minister John O'Donoghue has been accused of being incapable of objectivity over the proposed new stadium in Tallaght.

David Kennedy, a spokesman for local GAA club Thomas Davis, who oppose the proposed development of the arena exclusively for soccer, said they were "beyond considering the Minister's capability of being objective in relation to Tallaght Stadium."

He was responding to a pledge by Minister O'Donoghue that he wouldn't break his word to Shamrock Rovers that the stadium will be for exclusive soccer use.

Thomas Davis have received High Court approval for a full judicial review of the South Dublin County's Council's decision to designate the stadium for soccer only.

Thomas Davis and other GAA clubs in the area want it redeveloped to a sufficient size to also cater for Gaelic Games on a limited basis.

"The community representatives in the area know what the right answer for Tallaght is and also know that the reason it's being held up lies squarely on the shoulders of John O'Donoghue.

"We want the stadium completed for use by Shamrock Rovers and the GAA as soon as possible," Kennedy added. "We don't believe that John O'Donoghue has any part to play in achieving progress and as a consequence, we are not going to waste our time wondering about what his views are."

but the community representives of the area last voted for soccer only and have publically supported Rovers.... again, has one local TD/Councellor come out in support of the GAA position on the stadium? They are lining up to support Rovers. Kennedy has no real backing in the area on this one.

Kennedy is seriously starting to lost his grip and his temper here

QuoteKennedy is seriously starting to lost his grip and his temper here

Take a gawk in the mirror for the person losing their grip.

Quote from: magpie seanie on April 05, 2007, 02:20:37 PM

QuoteKennedy is seriously starting to lost his grip and his temper here

Take a gawk in the mirror for the person losing their grip.

hmm, 3 press releases in 3 days, all contrradicting each other. one threatenes a government minister.  ::)

and not one other member of TD clg put their name onto any of them.

time to take the blinkers off, he is making a show of himself and the club he claims to represent. 

you can be sure any press release by a club is agreed beforehand

O'Donoghue is very found of the press releases himself, so they are simply fighting fire with fire

this is never going to be solved on a messageboard or in the papers.

leave it to the courts

He is making a show of himself .... hahahahahaha .... you gotta laugh at the spin this idiot can put on anything.

Quote from: neilthemac on April 05, 2007, 02:30:44 PM
you can be sure any press release by a club is agreed beforehand

Not the whispers in West Dublin circles. The Rovers barrister pointed out the trustees of the club hadnt given backing to the case, something the TD barrister succesfully argued as irrelevant. hmmmm.

This is a one man show.

sorry, me last post missed this, but, do you have much of an idea of trhe judicial process at all?  Sometimes you seem as though you do, and then you come out with this sort of crap, do you understand what a jr is?

Quote from: dublinfella on April 06, 2007, 12:27:57 AM

Quote from: neilthemac on April 05, 2007, 02:30:44 PM
you can be sure any press release by a club is agreed beforehand

Not the whispers in West Dublin circles. The Rovers barrister pointed out the trustees of the club hadnt given backing to the case, something the TD barrister succesfully argued as irrelevant. hmmmm.

This is a one man show.

Jesus there's a one man show around here alright, you must be dizzy with the lies and spin you seem capable of spouting.

So tell me now, did Thomas Davis pay off the high court judge, or, was he able to look at this in cold logical terms and see that Thomas Davis have a point? .... let me see, i think i'll trust a high court judge over someone who tries to defend shamrock rovers ultras in their immature abusive protest. You cant even concede the simplest point that Thomas Davis, and by extension the GAA, might have a use for this facility, therefore it is clear as day that you are incapable of rational thought processes on this issue.

Quoteincapable of rational thought processes on this issue

That sums it up really. It'd be like if some GAA person was saying - Shams have no need for a ground!

Quote from: magpie seanie on April 06, 2007, 11:53:17 AM

Quoteincapable of rational thought processes on this issue

That sums it up really. It'd be like if some GAA person was saying - Shams have no need for a ground!

Exactly it's that basic a point. And he STILL won't admit it. He still thinks this is about a "god given right to shit on soccer" ... amazing how brain washed someone can be by a desire to have their own ground. Failure to concede this basic principle, presumably a don't give them an inch type thought process, says everything you need to know.

Why do Rovers need a home ground anyway, surely they're used to playing in other peoples gaffs at this stage.  ::)

Quote from: dublinfella on April 06, 2007, 12:27:57 AM

Quote from: neilthemac on April 05, 2007, 02:30:44 PM
you can be sure any press release by a club is agreed beforehand

Not the whispers in West Dublin circles. The Rovers barrister pointed out the trustees of the club hadnt given backing to the case, something the TD barrister succesfully argued as irrelevant. hmmmm.

This is a one man show.

I know I'm labouring the point, but one of your choice 'whispers' turned out to be complete and utter merde. Why we should believe this particular nugget is beyond me.

Didn't he pretend to be a TD member originally? More lies and propaganda. Neck like a jockeys ballix this lad, spinning and lying his hole off.

I'm with Thomas Davis on this one, played against them in Junior football in the past, never seen any trouble, yet when Shamrock Rovers came to Castlebar, there was an awfull amount of Gardai, and they had to have fences everywhere to send their crowd into a fenced of pen basically,

How much for that house in Milltown, the one where Glanmire used to be, how much for that house in Milltown, the one youll never afford to be

relax lads the minister is going to back down on this one.

 THE Minister for Sport and Tourism has insisted he could not agree to Tallaght Stadium being used for anything other than soccer despite last week's High Court decision which paved the way for a judicial review of the process.

"I could not agree to providing a regulation pitch for the simple reason that this could lead to a reduction in the capacity of the stadium," said John O'Donoghue yesterday.

Speaking on RTE radio, he said he had "promised" Shamrock Rovers it would be their home. He could not renege on his promise.

Two years ago, the local council voted for the stadium to be a multisports one, creating a home for Shamrock Rovers with a pitch suitable for Gaelic games. But the council reversed the decision when the Sports Minister said he would only grant money to a soccer-only stadium.
************************

Quotehe said he had "promised" Shamrock Rovers it would be their home. He could not renege on his promise.

Fianna Fáil have promised a lot of things and not delivered, so Thomas Davis are looking good!

Quote from: neilthemac on April 09, 2007, 11:21:34 AM

"I could not agree to providing a regulation pitch for the simple reason that this could lead to a reduction in the capacity of the stadium," said John O'Donoghue yesterday.

Isnt the thing in the middle of a great big park with only the shell of one stand put up?.
What's to stop them making it as big as they wish ?

Quote from: Rossfan on April 09, 2007, 12:14:55 PM

Quote from: neilthemac on April 09, 2007, 11:21:34 AM

"I could not agree to providing a regulation pitch for the simple reason that this could lead to a reduction in the capacity of the stadium," said John O'Donoghue yesterday.

Isnt the thing in the middle of a great big park with only the shell of one stand put up?.
What's to stop them making it as big as they wish ?

1: planning permission

2: the cost of redeisigning the stadium

3: a 2,000 seater ground isnt financially viable as its too small for Rovers and the Dubs.

4: the foundations for the rest of the stadium are already in place, major job lifting them.

5: the 'shell' will have to go to make way for a gaa pitch

6: they dont want to. JO'D and Bertie are committed to this and cant be seen to back down to a jumped up bully in a local GAA club.

7: the GAA have land down the road and have been offered a similar package to do something with that that might actually benefit the GAA

Quote from: tayto on April 06, 2007, 05:08:14 PM
Didn't he pretend to be a TD member originally? More lies and propaganda. Neck like a jockeys ballix this lad, spinning and lying his hole off.

when in doubt make something up tayto.

Quote from: sheskin on April 06, 2007, 08:53:11 PM
relax lads the minister is going to back down on this one.

really, what are you basing that on? why would he not have backed down before the court case?

this thread really should be read in conjunction with the Mayo stadium thread for scale and context.

Dublinfella you did claim to be a GAA member and NOT a Rovers fan.

Didnt you?

Ya but Mayo County Board, Fans, Investors & Sponsers are tr-building McHale not the Government & before it was Castlebar Mitchells, the locals in the town and local sponsers that got it to the size its at already.

McHale Park aready has 3-4 full backpitches, a large carpark, and a big sportshall and a bar already, thats GAA-Economics for ya, we make the pennys/cents go a long long way.

Quote from: dubnut on April 09, 2007, 05:02:08 PM
Dublinfella you did claim to be a GAA member and NOT a Rovers fan.

Didnt you?

I am a member of the GAA. Its a tad childish that a dissenting voice has to defend himself like this.

Quote from: Fishead_Sam on April 09, 2007, 05:07:25 PM
Ya but Mayo County Board, Fans, Investors & Sponsers are tr-building McHale not the Government & before it was Castlebar Mitchells, the locals in the town and local sponsers that got it to the size its at already.

McHale Park aready has 3-4 full backpitches, a large carpark, and a big sportshall and a bar already, thats GAA-Economics for ya, we make the pennys/cents go a long long way.

According to the other thread there will be Govt involvement in the funding. But i think the substantive point is that the GAA in Castlebar had the freedom to build a facility without ouside influences like the courts and other sporting bodies dictating things. They drew up a plan and got funding. Something Thomas Davis have failed to do, they waited for another sport to get going and then tried to piggyback in unwanted and for free.

But we have a bizarre situation where people are saying the association are building unsuitable stadia while trying to force our way into a stadium thats unsuitable. The association seems to have lost its way in terms of the bigger picture on infrastructure since CP was finished.

Quote from: dublinfella on April 09, 2007, 06:12:27 PM
[ the GAA in Castlebar had the freedom to build a facility without ouside influences like the courts and other sporting bodies dictating things. .

The big difference is - 1 -the GAA OWN McHale Park
                                2 - they are improving what they built there already
                               3 -they are getting percentage grants TOWARDS the overall cost(like all other sports facilities except ONE)
                               4 -it is NOT Mayo Co Council building a County Stadium which if they did should be for all the people of Mayo.
Meanwhile in Tallaght Shiterock Beggars want a free public facility built for them because they couldnt raise the funds to build it themselves on the free site they were given.
The GAA rightly want the County Stadium to be able to host their games too and the High Court has said they have a point.
As for Cumann Thomáis Dáibheis - I'm sure the club are behind the action as unlike Soccer -GAA clubs are organised bodies and one man cant run off taking Court cases on his own.

Too right Rossfan, do you remember when Galway Uniteds Terryland could not facilitate soccer for European football, it was the GAA out in Connemarra that had to bail them out, this was back in the early 1990's when they where playing a Dutch side, it seems to be all give by the GAA and none by the soccer.

Quote from: Fishead_Sam on April 09, 2007, 09:08:34 PM
, it seems to be all give by the GAA and none by the soccer.

The day soccer has something to give to the GAA will be some day.
All that lot have is the hand out all the time >:(

i will give thomas davis gac 110% support
they should go further and say that this stadium should be for gaa only
keep westbrit dole rovers out of tallaght

look dublinfella, you are fighting a loosing argument, anyone in their right mind would automatically know that what the minister is doing doesnt appear to be fair at all and that thomas davis are right to try and mount a challenge. i dont see how you can try to defend rovers here.

as for mchale park, whats wrong with mayo getting a grant here - it will be in proportion with all the other sporting organisations. the money will be used constructively t improve facilities, i would doubt if the mayo county board come back in a couple of years time wanting to know if the government would do the improvements for them because they couldnt really be bothered to raise the money needed.

by the way dublinfella, im looking to build a house. was thinking of applying for a grant. could you or one of the other shamrock rovers boys give me some advice on how to go about seeking one - yous boys seem to know the ins and outs of it all. maybe you could persuade the minister to drop me a few quid for my much needed facility.

Quote from: dublinfella on April 09, 2007, 06:12:27 PM

Quote from: dubnut on April 09, 2007, 05:02:08 PM
Dublinfella you did claim to be a GAA member and NOT a Rovers fan.

Didnt you?

I am a member of the GAA. Its a tad childish that a dissenting voice has to defend himself like this.

Defending myself??? From what??

You never answered about claiming not to be a Rovers fans by the way  ;)

Anyone know where someone could get a copy of the architects report as commissioned by TD?

Quote from: Bogball XV on April 27, 2007, 09:09:09 PM
Anyone know where someone could get a copy of the architects report as commissioned by TD?

They arent sharing it. Not with the council or the courts.

They havent mentioned it in a while.

Its a legitimate question as to whether it exists.

What's it supposed to contain anyway?

Quote from: Bogball XV on April 28, 2007, 03:17:31 PM
What's it supposed to contain anyway?

at one point they claimed that they had commisioned an architects report that said the capacity wouldnt be reduced with a full size GAA pitch.

The council said if it was true that they would take a look and a compromise could be reached.

TD refused to share.

One of two things has happened. Either TD havent got the report they claimed and their bluff was called, or they do but dont want this resolved quickly as that would mean Rovers would be in.

Quote from: dublinfella on April 28, 2007, 03:22:34 PM
or they do but dont want this resolved quickly as that would mean Rovers would be in.

If they do why would they want to delay Rovers getting in when it would delay themselves getting in too???

Oh right, anti soccer bigoted sentiment  ::)

Quote from: his holiness nb on April 29, 2007, 11:32:52 AM

Quote from: dublinfella on April 28, 2007, 03:22:34 PM
or they do but dont want this resolved quickly as that would mean Rovers would be in.

If they do why would they want to delay Rovers getting in when it would delay themselves getting in too???

Oh right, anti soccer bigoted sentiment  ::)

why did they try to have the judicial review they were bringing delayed then?

do you not remember all the previous times this was answered?????

Are you by any chance a goldfish????  :-\