Shamrock Rovers Ultras

[Hardy]

... why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished ...

Is this the famous €100,000 ( )? And which Rovers paid this? One of the tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, supplier-robbing, employee-screwing incarnations of Rovers, that you claim is different to the current version? If so, their contribution is irrelevant, isn't it, since they are in no way related to the present Rovers. Isn't that so?

Or is it the present Rovers? If so, didn't they get more than fully compensated when they SOLD back the lease on the property that had been donated to them completely buckshee? What has happened to that money, by the way?

[behind the wire]

sounds ok to me, so long as rovers pay for their own club house and pay rent for the use of the field then that should work out ok. the government must make sole decision as to when each sporting organisation can use the facility. i still dont know why they cant let the gaa use it though as it would be a great help to gaelic games in the area.

[dublinfella]

sounds ok to me, so long as rovers pay for their own club house and pay rent for the use of the field then that should work out ok. the government must make sole decision as to when each sporting organisation can use the facility. i still dont know why they cant let the gaa use it though as it would be a great help to gaelic games in the area.

they are letting the GAA use it, its just the structural changes to the site to accomodate even a small full sized GAA pitch would be too expensive, take too long and reduce capacity to a point where the stadium will run at a permanent loss.

there is no ideological stance been taken here, a GAA pitch simply wont fit.

[deiseach]

reduce capacity to a point where the stadium will run at a permanent loss.

So the annual cost of running a stadium is . . . what, exactly?

[dublinfella]

reduce capacity to a point where the stadium will run at a permanent loss.

So the annual cost of running a stadium is . . . what, exactly?

that i dont know exactly, but like when LR was being planned there was a formula of minimum number of seats to make in viable x times it was used per year x the planned life of the place / the building and upkeep costs. it was 50,000 with LR. if the planners came in and insisted on less than this they would have moved elsewhere.

tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.

[dublinfella]

... why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished ...

Is this the famous €100,000 ( )? And which Rovers paid this? One of the tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, supplier-robbing, employee-screwing incarnations of Rovers, that you claim is different to the current version? If so, their contribution is irrelevant, isn't it, since they are in no way related to the present Rovers. Isn't that so?

its still more than the GAA have offered....

so its a national disgrace that a soccer club that needs it gets a stadium built nearly for free but justice will be served if a GAA club that dont need it gets in totally for free?

thats krazy logic!

[deiseach]

that i dont know exactly, but like when LR was being planned there was a formula of minimum number of seats to make in viable x times it was used per year x the planned life of the place / the building and upkeep costs. it was 50,000 with LR. if the planners came in and insisted on less than this they would have moved elsewhere.

tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.

I'd like to see the figures, thanks. If you're suggesting that 50,000 is an absolute minimum figure for Lansdowne Road to turn a profit, with a 49,000 capacity making it loss making, then the FAI and the IRFU must be going to make absolute buttons out of the new Lansdowne, whch is clearly not the case. Perhaps you are confusing an accounting loss (when you lose money) with an economic loss (when the 'loss' is the difference between what you make and what you would have made had you pursued a different course).

[dublinfella]

that i dont know exactly, but like when LR was being planned there was a formula of minimum number of seats to make in viable x times it was used per year x the planned life of the place / the building and upkeep costs. it was 50,000 with LR. if the planners came in and insisted on less than this they would have moved elsewhere.

tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.

I'd like to see the figures, thanks. If you're suggesting that 50,000 is an absolute minimum figure for Lansdowne Road to turn a profit, with a 49,000 capacity making it loss making, then the FAI and the IRFU must be going to make absolute buttons out of the new Lansdowne, whch is clearly not the case. Perhaps you are confusing an accounting loss (when you lose money) with an economic loss (when the 'loss' is the difference between what you make and what you would have made had you pursued a different course).
[/quote

I dont have the exact figures to hand, but there is a minumum number of seats in any sporting arena that are needed to make it financially viable. factored into this are the cost of building, the amount of games per year, the upkeep of the facilty and any extras that can be made out of holding other events.

are you denying this? or are you arguing for the sake of it?

[Hardy]

... why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished ...

Is this the famous €100,000 ( )? And which Rovers paid this? One of the tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, supplier-robbing, employee-screwing incarnations of Rovers, that you claim is different to the current version? If so, their contribution is irrelevant, isn't it, since they are in no way related to the present Rovers. Isn't that so?

its still more than the GAA have offered....

so its a national disgrace that a soccer club that needs it gets a stadium built nearly for free but justice will be served if a GAA club that dont need it gets in totally for free?

thats krazy logic!

And your answers to my questions?

[dublinfella]

... why should the entire structure, foundations and drainage that Rovers have paid for be demolished ...

Is this the famous €100,000 ( )? And which Rovers paid this? One of the tax-defaulting, asset-stripping, supplier-robbing, employee-screwing incarnations of Rovers, that you claim is different to the current version? If so, their contribution is irrelevant, isn't it, since they are in no way related to the present Rovers. Isn't that so?

its still more than the GAA have offered....

so its a national disgrace that a soccer club that needs it gets a stadium built nearly for free but justice will be served if a GAA club that dont need it gets in totally for free?

thats krazy logic!

And your answers to my questions?

dont know, dont care, none of the GAA's business in the same way its none of theirs what goes on in GAA grounds. what deal rovers and the sdcc strike to finish the thing is their business. build rathcoole now.


the SDCC managed to engineer something that will raise revenue for the council and still be a public amenity. the gaa get offered a similar deal on rathcoole. rovers get a home. win, win, win. but no. lets sue instead.

[deiseach]

I dont have the exact figures to hand, but there is a minumum number of seats in any sporting arena that are needed to make it financially viable. factored into this are the cost of building, the amount of games per year, the upkeep of the facilty and any extras that can be made out of holding other events.

are you denying this? or are you arguing for the sake of it?

Yes, I am denying it. Let's say Tallaght Stadium has a capacity of 2,000. Rovers fill it 40 times a year - given they need a 10,000 capacity stadium, that should be a cinch. Other groups / events fill it ten times a year, so we have the stadium filled once a week. This strikes me as being pretty good. An average Nationwide Conference club could only dream of having FIFTY such attendances a year. Yet you're saying that this hypothetical stadium would be loss making. It seems counter-intuitive, to say the least.

I'll confess to partially arguing for the sake of it though. I enjoy arguing.

[Hardy]

its still more than the GAA have offered....

Don't think so. How can a negative amount be more than zero?

dont know, dont care, none of the GAA's business in the same way its none of theirs what goes on in GAA grounds.

It's my business as a taxpayer.

what deal rovers and the sdcc strike to finish the thing is their business

The judge didn't seem to think so. I'd say it stopped being exclusively their business when SDCC promised to accommodate the GAA in the stadium and were then forced to renege by the minister. In what way is it unreasonable for TD to demand that SDCC/Minister O'Donoghue deliver what was promised? And Shamrock Rovers scream that THEY are hard done by! They get a free stadium IN ADDITION to money raised from selling something they got free from the taxpayer, back to the taxpayer! Money that has since gone God knows where. And then they have the jaw-dropping gall to issue a statement that they are happy to accommodate junior (sic) GAA as if it were THEIR stadium!

Forgive the cliché, but you couldn't make it up. Unless you were the scriptwriter for a Marx Brothers caper. Monkey Business, maybe.

[dublinfella]

I dont have the exact figures to hand, but there is a minumum number of seats in any sporting arena that are needed to make it financially viable. factored into this are the cost of building, the amount of games per year, the upkeep of the facilty and any extras that can be made out of holding other events.

are you denying this? or are you arguing for the sake of it?

Yes, I am denying it. Let's say Tallaght Stadium has a capacity of 2,000. Rovers fill it 40 times a year - given they need a 10,000 capacity stadium, that should be a cinch. Other groups / events fill it ten times a year, so we have the stadium filled once a week. This strikes me as being pretty good. An average Nationwide Conference club could only dream of having FIFTY such attendances a year. Yet you're saying that this hypothetical stadium would be loss making. It seems counter-intuitive, to say the least.

I'll confess to partially arguing for the sake of it though. I enjoy arguing.

I dont follow. Building a stadium of 2,000 at a higher cost than building one of 10,000 is more likely to be financially viable?

Get up the yard.

If SDCC get 10% of the gate, its going to generate more on a crowd of 8,000 than one of 2,000. The fact that I had to type that out shows the levels people are willing to drag the debate to rather than just think for a second a chairman in the association is acting like a **** for the sake of it.

The judge didn't seem to think so. I'd say it stopped being exclusively their business when SDCC promised to accommodate the GAA in the stadium and were then forced to renege by the minister. In what way is it unreasonable for TD to demand that SDCC/Minister O'Donoghue deliver what was promised? And Shamrock Rovers scream that THEY are hard done by! They get a free stadium IN ADDITION to money raised from selling something they got free from the taxpayer, back to the taxpayer! Money that has since gone God knows where. And then they have the jaw-dropping gall to issue a statement that they are happy to accommodate junior (sic) GAA as if it were THEIR stadium!

Forgive the cliché, but you couldn't make it up. Unless you were the scriptwriter for a Marx Brothers caper. Monkey Business, maybe.

the judge hasnt made a call on their case. just that they have a right to argue it.

the stadium is not free. there is a dispute about how muich rovers put in, but they put something in.

and the cost to the exchequer will be more if TD get their way and the ground run at a loss going forward. so give over with the concerned taxpayer bullshit.

[deiseach]

I dont follow. Building a stadium of 2,000 at a higher cost than building one of 10,000 is more likely to be financially viable?

You're shifting the argument. What you said originally was:

tallaght has a similar 'break even point' and the GAA proposal will bring capacity below this magic number. ergo, it would contribute less to the local area as a loss making ground so the decision was taken to carry on as planned.

So you can see why I'd like to see this study which shows that the stadium would be (and I emphasis it again) loss making because even you seem to be backing away from it now.

[Hardy]

the judge hasnt made a call on their case. just that they have a right to argue it.

As I said, the judge, then, disagrees with you in that regard. You said it was between SDCC and SR. The judge says, unlike you,  no – TD have a legitimate interest.

the stadium is not free. there is a dispute about how mich rovers put in, but they put something in.

The only figure I've seen them quote is €100K. I'd say they wouldn't be slow to trumpet it if it was more. It's not even clear whether that was their own money, or under which of the several guises under which they've scammed their way across the sporting landscape of the country it was spent.  However, when you consider that they got the land free and then SOLD the lease back to SDCC, they are net financial beneficiaries already and not contributors. So the stadium is not just free, they've been paid to use it!

and the cost to the exchequer will be more if TD get their way and the ground run at a loss fgoing forward. so give over with the concerned taxpayer bullshit

Tendentious and spurious and nothing but speculation. And try to argue civilly.