Colm Keyes in yesterdays Indo
THE Thomas Davis GAA club will have their request for a judicial review of South Dublin County Council's decision to make the Tallaght Stadium a soccer only venue heard in the High Court today.
The Tallaght GAA club have the backing of other southside GAA clubs, the Dublin County Board and the GAA as they seek a review of a decision that bars the playing of Gaelic games at the stadium.
The Tallaght Stadium, the proposed new home for Shamrock Rovers, will enjoy significant exchequer funding to serve its completion.
But the local Thomas Davis club want the council's decision reviewed on the basis that it will provide a strong advantage to soccer in the area and will greatly assist them in winning the hearts and minds of the local youth.
In a submission on behalf of the club, the High Court will hear that the"youth of Tallaght will be restricted to a diet of association football" if the decision stands.
Ideal
Thomas Davis and the other southside clubs see the municipal stadium as an ideal venue for championship matches between clubs in the area.
To facilitate GAA matches, the pitch would have to be extended.
However, this would involve extensive work at the venue and Shamrock Rovers fear that if there are any further delays they could go out of business.
Senior GAA officials are keeping a close eye on the Tallaght situation at a time when Croke Park is preparing to open up to international soccer and rugby next year.
----
the case wasnt heard yesterday for lack of judges and TD mysteriously arent available for any of the free dates in the immediate future. but i love this line "the youth of Tallaght will be restricted to a diet of association football". they actually had the balls to use this line as the basis of a legal action.
and gaelic games arent barred from the stadium, the dept just arent willing to redisign for senior mens games
im f**king furious that this €200,000 legal escapade is being funded by the association. they cant win and will lose costs, and as hyland sad in the herald during the week, if they win they potentially open every gaa ground in the country that has recieved public money up to other sports. there is a bigger picture here and TD need to be reminded of it.
Dublinfella,
read the article again, it does not say that the submission says "youth of Tallaght will be restricted to a diet of association football", that might or might be a direct quotation from the submission, I would assume not. You really should not believe everything written in the papers, they tend to put certain spins on things.
As for your fury re the wasting of the association's money, i'd be more furious that the govt. should have decided to build a stadium exclusively for the use of a business that has failed several times now, despite the windfall taken by the clubs then owner for the Milltown lands.
Obviously the fair approach here would be to build a proper stadium that would accommodate all codes, that may well be the outcome of the judicial review. As for your other argument re other grounds being forced to open up to other sports - no, that's utter bollocks. The difference being ownership of said grounds.
the GAA grounds are owned (mainly) by the GAA themselves so they have say over who uses them
this stadium will be owned by south dublin co co and the taxpayer
Thomas Davis are right to challenge this development. Publicly funded stadiums should be built for use by a multitude of sports - GAA, soccer, Rugby, cricket or whatever
Especially when Shamrock Rovers are too financially inept to run a stadium on their own
Jesus Christ !!! it is absolutely unbelievably pathetic that the Government through South Dublin County Council is going to spend €11m on a stadium for a failed(at least 3 times) professional sports club while a succesful voluntary non commercial sports body is specifically barred from using the same tax payer publicly funded stadium.
All I would say is GAA pweople rememebr this at election time and vote for the opposotion no matter how much it might hurt .
Show blusterer O'Donoghue where to get off- the b***ix
yeah. all Thomas Davis and the GAA are asking is that the pitch be made big enough so that GAA games could possibly be played there in the future - say when Shamrock Rovers have no games, or go out of business (again) or decide to move elsewhere...
more people are likely to frequent the place if all sports can use the facility. Then it really will be part of the community
Quote from: dublinfella on November 26, 2006, 03:16:31 PM
the first time i have heard any sports body bring the dept to the high court to stop them funding a rival and as a side show has the potential to open all GAA grounds.
What do you mean stop them funding a rival? You know what TD want, why do you not think it is fair? As for the opening of all gaa grounds etc, as explained before, that's nonsense - gaa clubs by and large own their own grounds.
Quote from: dublinfella on November 26, 2006, 01:35:49 AM
if south dublin needs a stadium so bady, why wait in the wings until Shamrock Rovers (and why do you refer to them as a business just out of intereast?) hit a snag?
Or alternatively, if rovers need a stadium so badly, why not build it themselves? If they're not a business what are they?
It's fairly obvious you a very different agenda to the majority of posters on this board on this one Dublinfella, and that's fine, to me, this issue is pretty cut and dry as regards natural justice - i have no idea how the courts will rule, because I haven't seen the various affidavits, there may be enough in there to allow sdcc to proceed, but that does not mean that the sensible decision will have been taken.
Why is it only Thomas Davis and the GAA kicking up about Rovers getting a stadium? Why no complaints from the local rugby clubs to ensure their sport can be played on it, shouldn't their be an athletics around the outside, and a baseball diamond tucked in there, perhaps some tennis courts too?
This is all about Thomas Davis obstructing the progress of soccer - it's small minded and unnecessary, they'd do better to find better ways of keeping kids involved in their club instread of worrying about other sports competing for the attention of the youth.
QuoteThe GAA cant refuse (rightfully) to share their facilties and demand that others share with them, especially seeing as Rovers have put €2m in and the Dept will put in the other €4m
if the public are putting up the bulk of the money then the public should have the opportunity to use the facilty.,If the pitch is made bigger then soccer, GAA and rugby can use the ground. In GAA facilities there may have been a public contribution, but it is not two thirds of the cost!!
Quote from: dublinfella on November 26, 2006, 04:23:04 PM
so let them build one. this is the crux of my anger. when do we get the southside parnell park? whats happening with the Rathcoole site? Is GAA policy now not to bother building on our own, rather wait like vultures? We need someone in the DCB to get off their arses and make good on the promises to build a ground, not sue the govt for helping another code who tried to sort it themselves.
In what way are Rovers building their own stadium? You say they are stumping up €2m of the €6m being spent on the project, but seeing as the Revenue Commissioners had to write off the best part of €1.5m owed to the Exchequer by Rovers, it seems the taxpayer is effectively paying €5.5m of the cost. Not even at it's most generous did the EU ever contribute over 90% of the cost of any one project. Factor in the way Glenmalure Park was sold and you have a recipe for some major hole-sickening.
Whatever the legal outcome, Shamrock Rovers have done nothing to deserve this largesse.
Quote from: An Laoch on November 26, 2006, 07:02:38 PM
Does anybody on this board really believe think that this action is more about making things better for South Dublin GAA than about making things difficult for a soccer club?
I do, but my info on it is limited to what i've read on this board and its previous incarnation.
anyone know when the high court is coing to reach its decision?
Quote from: magickingdom on November 26, 2006, 10:14:06 PM
anyone know when the high court is coing to reach its decision?
on that, im' 'rehashing' this because was up at on friday but postponed for lack of judges (which is another thread in itself). hearing is re-set for the 14th of December as TD's legal team were unavailable for all the openings before then. Decision whenever after, you know the courts. could be an hour, could be a month. Talk in the clubhouse was early next year, but TD are highly unlikely to win so its off to the appeal courts and beyond.
If it goes to supreme court, that'll be another year - and then they'll lose - the supreme court are hand picked by the govt, so generally they do what the govt. tell them - ah, tis great that the judiciary and the state are so disparate.
Quote from: dublinfella on November 26, 2006, 08:53:53 PMI'im not disputing that, what I am disputing is the 'right' the GAA have to demand access to a project that was never intended for their use.When did municpal become multi sport? The other municipal stadia i listed were all more than 50% funded by the exchequer and the GAA managed to avoid going to court? why is this different?
its clearly a move to damage a soccer club's prospects and thats not acceptible form the GAA in 2006.
Clearly the GAA have the right to argue their position - unless you think due process doesn't apply when it comes to soccer clubs. A substantial amount of public money is being given to one organisation with little or no cost to that organisation. How bad would the uproar have being if 90+% of the funding for Croke Park had come from the public purse?
Of course you could argue (as you seem to be doing) that the GAA's stance is in some way immoral, but some of us find it even more distasteful that large amounts of cash are being handed over to an organisation - Rovers - that has shown itself in the past to be, shall we say, cavalier in matters financial. Maybe the GAA should start flogging all their grounds, safe in the knowledge that not only will they make money out of the sale but the State will then pick up the tab for building new ones - all in the interests of the 'community'
Amusing that the main defender of a south Dublin GAA club here is a Louth man.
This T Davis effort is outragous. If they need a facility then go build one, don't be acting the magpie on it.
The GAA has done well enough out of the public purse - they shouldn't look the gift horse in the mouth and comments from people on here proclaiming their concern to be about the granting of taxpayers' money to a 'failed' business stink of self righteous hipocracy, if not not self serving bigotry. If it was anything else ye'd not be bothered.
If SDCC wants to build a ground for whatever it wants to build a ground for, that's its business. Hasn't the GAA got grounds all over South Dublin - the Davis and St Annes grounds are literally within shouting distance - if they really want to develop them. Small minded petty s**t like this is what p****s me off about the GAA and some of the people that inhabit it.
Quote from: deiseach on November 26, 2006, 10:57:38 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on November 26, 2006, 08:53:53 PMI'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is the 'right' the GAA have to demand access to a project that was never intended for their use.When did municipal become multi sport? The other municipal stadia i listed were all more than 50% funded by the exchequer and the GAA managed to avoid going to court? why is this different?
its clearly a move to damage a soccer club's prospects and thats not acceptable form the GAA in 2006.
Clearly the GAA have the right to argue their position - unless you think due process doesn't apply when it comes to soccer clubs. A substantial amount of public money is being given to one organisation with little or no cost to that organisation. How bad would the uproar have being if 90+% of the funding for Croke Park had come from the public purse?
Of course you could argue (as you seem to be doing) that the GAA's stance is in some way immoral, but some of us find it even more distasteful that large amounts of cash are being handed over to an organisation - Rovers - that has shown itself in the past to be, shall we say, cavalier in matters financial. Maybe the GAA should start flogging all their grounds, safe in the knowledge that not only will they make money out of the sale but the State will then pick up the tab for building new ones - all in the interests of the 'community'
thomas davis have the right to argue its postion in court in the same way the croke park residents do... and im not defending rovers per say. i just dont see what LEGAL business it is of TD clg what happens across the road in the same way i would ferociously object to the FAI bringing a similar action to demand access to gaa grounds. not moral or as a question of defending the taxpayer, but LEGALLY you cant say a good approach is, and I quote from the submission they are going to make:
"To reserve the SDCC Municipal Stadium exclusively for Assocation Football, a stadium that is intended to be used for other non-sporting community occasions, will place the applicant at
a considerable disadvantage in attracting the youth of Tallaght to our club, our sport and the GAA culture."
I dont disagree, but if thats what you are going to the High court armed with, christ. Its easy to argue the govt are wrong to fund the stadium, but its a whole different ball game to argue its ILLEGAL, which TD have to do. the court isnt there to referee a row over who believes they have a right to what,they are there to decide did the sdcc break the law in building a stadium for a single sport. and i believe they cant and as such, there is an agenda at play and i dont want part of it.
Quote from: paddypastit on November 26, 2006, 11:24:05 PM
The GAA has done well enough out of the public purse - they shouldn't look the gift horse in the mouth and comments from people on here proclaiming their concern to be about the granting of taxpayers' money to a 'failed' business stink of self righteous hipocracy, if not not self serving bigotry. If it was anything else ye'd not be bothered.
Paddy, the taxpayers thing is what gets me, this is actually a huge issue and one which many league of ireland clubs fail to face up to. They are businesses, they do not act like businesses - time after time clubs go into receivership, pay their creditors 1c in the €1 and reform the club as a new business. It's not good enough, they should be forced to comply with normal business rules by their organisation - rovers should have been finished last year - they owed €3.6m to creditors - maybe that's where the alleged €2m they paid into the new stadium came from. Of this 1.5m was owed to the revenue, an offer of 2% was accepted by the revenue, they owed their other creditors 1.7m, they accepted 4% - these other creditors could be any small businesses in the locality who they owed money to (they could have been anybody actually - but this is a more emotive example). So, they totally fcuk up their finances and the business essentially closes down, then a bullshit takeover is facilitated by the 400 club, to all intents and purposes the club was finished, but the FAI and the govt saved them by bending the rules and giving favours that other businesses would not get.
Whilst we're on the subject, Shels are also getting treated with kid gloves by the revenue currently, they have also decide that paying paye/prsi (which they have already deducted from player's salaries) is not for them, well not regularly anyway, afaik they owed approx 600k - now what other business would get away with that - apparently it's only Ozzie Kilkenny and a few others who are keeping the club afloat, and thats just because they're paying in advance for Tolka Park (which they now own and will develop once planning is sorted out).
So, looking at those figures, Rovers owed the govt 1.5m, paid them 30K so we could say the govt actually granted them 1.47m.
If clubs are not responsible enough to budget properly, they should not be in business imo - it's very simple, revenue received is pretty much the amount of money they should spend every year, nothing more.
Quote from: Bogball XV on November 26, 2006, 11:53:51 PM
Quote from: paddypastit on November 26, 2006, 11:24:05 PM
The GAA has done well enough out of the public purse - they shouldn't look the gift horse in the mouth and comments from people on here proclaiming their concern to be about the granting of taxpayers' money to a 'failed' business stink of self righteous hipocracy, if not not self serving bigotry. If it was anything else ye'd not be bothered.
Paddy, the taxpayers thing is what gets me, this is actually a huge issue and one which many league of ireland clubs fail to face up to. They are businesses, they do not act like businesses - time after time clubs go into receivership, pay their creditors 1c in the €1 and reform the club as a new business. It's not good enough, they should be forced to comply with normal business rules by their organisation - rovers should have been finished last year - they owed €3.6m to creditors - maybe that's where the alleged €2m they paid into the new stadium came from. Of this 1.5m was owed to the revenue, an offer of 2% was accepted by the revenue, they owed their other creditors 1.7m, they accepted 4% - these other creditors could be any small businesses in the locality who they owed money to (they could have been anybody actually - but this is a more emotive example). So, they totally fcuk up their finances and the business essentially closes down, then a bullshit takeover is facilitated by the 400 club, to all intents and purposes the club was finished, but the FAI and the govt saved them by bending the rules and giving favours that other businesses would not get.
Whilst we're on the subject, Shels are also getting treated with kid gloves by the revenue currently, they have also decide that paying paye/prsi (which they have already deducted from player's salaries) is not for them, well not regularly anyway, afaik they owed approx 600k - now what other business would get away with that - apparently it's only Ozzie Kilkenny and a few others who are keeping the club afloat, and thats just because they're paying in advance for Tolka Park (which they now own and will develop once planning is sorted out).
So, looking at those figures, Rovers owed the govt 1.5m, paid them 30K so we could say the govt actually granted them 1.47m.
If clubs are not responsible enough to budget properly, they should not be in business imo - it's very simple, revenue received is pretty much the amount of money they should spend every year, nothing more.
Rovers are the only LOI club to ever go into examinership, and to be fair i wouldnt call the 400c takeover 'bullshit', they are running the show very well since removing the crooks and liars involved, which in part explains TD's determination not to let them into tallaght. the recievership was above board and legal, many struggling business do it. the fan takeover ensured that they as a members club will never be so prolifigate again.
but broadly, yes, LOI clubs are a mess. but the revenue is sniffing aroung managers and players expenses, and 'raided CP to check on the security and catering firms, so we arent in a position to be too moralistic on this. i think the gaa are next when the revenue are finished with soccer clubs.
but the dept still have a legal right to build a stadium for local soccer clubs, including rovers. despite what previous chairmen of the club got up to
Quote from: paddypastit on November 26, 2006, 11:24:05 PM
If SDCC wants to build a ground for whatever it wants to build a ground for, that's its business. Hasn't the GAA got grounds all over South Dublin - the Davis and St Annes grounds are literally within shouting distance - if they really want to develop them. Small minded petty s**t like this is what p****s me off about the GAA and some of the people that inhabit it.
I'm from south Dublin and i think Thoman Davis are more then jusified in their action.
So this is how you punish a business for cooking it's books? You biuld them a free stadium. Great stuff altogether.
SDCC had agreed to let the local GAA clubs use the stadium but the sports minister pulled the plug inexplicably. Now unless anyone here thinks FF are alway righ then Thomas Davis are perfectly entitled to take this to court. People saying they should just build their own ground are just talking cobblers, SDCC had agreed to let them use this one with minor modifications. It is in a prime location that is easy to access from anywhere in south Dublin due to a host of bus routes and the Luas.
Fact is Eircom league clubs shouldnt be going full time because they simply can't afford it ont he tiny crowds that come through the gates, i fail to see why the government should prop up an unsustainable business model like this.
The ground is being built for a league of ireland team. A team that plays in a division the top precentile of soccer players play in. Do people honestly think that if a u12 local team match is to be player that shamrock rovers first team will not take precident on the pitch. So lets stop this shit that it is a community field etc.. It is a stadium being built using tax payers money to accomadate a club who mismanaged their finances.
Maybe I am wrong but of any of the gaa clubs that have sold there grounds or part of their grounds- i have not heard of one where the government go and build them a new ground. Why should we the tax payer but up money for a club who can not look after their own affairs, unless it is a ground that is available to all sports, rugby,gaa soccer and even while they are doing it put an athletics track in as well.
U12 match? oh for the love of god, will you cop on. No one is being that unreasonible. You seem determined to make as weak an argument as humanly possible by total exaggeration.
The stadium is being finished by SDCC as a municipal stadium, with Rovers as the primary tenants. So yes, Rovers get first dibs on use of the stadium, fair enough, but championship matches between two Dublin southside clubs should be able to be played there as well instead of dragging players and supporters across Dublin [often on weeknights now aswell with the floodlights]. SDCC had agreed as much, the Dublin county board had offered to help pay for the extension, then minister knuckle head comes along and says no.
the same man who gives millions to the horse racing and greyhound lobby?
the same man who said at the weekend GAA players should bring their disputes to the courts??? Well here they are so, Minister
Yes, the same minister who mouthed off on Prime Time recently about how the GAA should end it's association with drinks sponsorship. Happily forgetting to mention the the Heineken cup, the Carlsberg Cup, the Magners league, the Guinness autumn internationals.
Hennessy Gold Cup along with a host of other races I don't even know
Don't really have an opinion on the main issue here - but I do find it fairly amazing that the LOI clubs should be slagged about failing to comply with the Revenue, when there are a fair amount of county boards/ supporters club/ big local clubs who would hate to see them sniffing around "expenses" for managers and certain high profile players.
Glass houses and all that.
tayto,
point taken on board regarding u12 game, i was however trying to show an example (howevery bad) that the stadium being built for "the community" should be for the community, If the government want to build shamrock rovers a stadium let them just come out and say it not in this veiled form.
Easytiger, for what it's worth I'd love to see Revenue going after that kind of carry on. If we could get back to unpaid managers it might suck a lot of the air out of the GPA professionalism balloon.
Quote from: ildanach on November 27, 2006, 01:36:02 PM
tayto,
point taken on board regarding u12 game, i was however trying to show an example (howevery bad) that the stadium being built for "the community" should be for the community, If the government want to build shamrock rovers a stadium let them just come out and say it not in this veiled form.
Fair enough boss, I took you up wrong so, sorry about that.
People seem to have such black and white opinions on this.
I have sympathy for Rovers and their fans over this but a community stadium should sure be able to fit all the sports played in the community. The thing could probably be finished by now if the minister hadnt forced the SDCC to change their mind. Anyone saying it wouldnt be an ideal location for GAA matches in south dublin is just not being objective in my opinion.
No worries. Anyway if it goes to the supreme court i can not see it being resolved before the next election and by then the bull o donohue will probably have a new brief.. that is if FF are still in power.
As the original poster said, the only winners if this goes that far would be the lawyers. The legal bill would probably pay for the work in the first place. Why not just extend it and be done with it, get rovers in place, with GAA clubs using it on other days, maybe even the dublin hurlers or footballers could play there once or twice.
LAds. O'Donoughue told TD and the DCB he would look favourably on the application for funding up in Rathcoole. He also said he would assist them in the planning process. If the GAA games are to be accomodated part of the ground will have to be torn down, plannig re applied for and the cost would increase siginificatly.
Irrespective if you are a rovers supporter or not, but if there were a resource in Tallaght say for example an Eircom league ground, that allowed children in Free on a friday night to see a game, in a fairly rough area. Wouldn't it be better that its there, aswell as opened for other community purpose's when rovers weren't playing, than have kids hanging around the square or in the various housing estates wheres theres plenty of mischief to get up to.
I think as an assocation this looks very bad for the GAA. We as members shouldn't need to get involved in petty arguments over funding for the likes of Tallaght. Shamrock Rovers are an irrelevence. Maybe not for Mr Kennedy, but having them as neighbours in Tallaght isn't a threat to the GAA.
Building expenses might go up by redeveloping the current site but surely it'd still be significantly cheaper then building a whole new stadium elsewhere.
Whereabouts in Rathcoole is he proposing exactly? it's easier for me to get to Parnell park then Rathcoole to be honest, unless the buses out that way have improved dramatically in the last few years.
Point taking Tayto. I'm not sure of the exact location in Rathcoole. But is this not a case of first in, best dressed. The location of the ground in tallaght is ideal.
It smacks of one child wanting the others Christmas present. As i've said before it doesn't do the GAA any favours to chase this.
There would be an opinion within Shamrock Rovers that Kennedy is only after them to drive them into extinction.
Is Rathcoole site, the same site sdcc have been dragged their heals on proving infrastructure on and so the dcb cant getting planning on the site?
Not sure GNEVin.
What site is that and what have they been dragging their heels on. It certainly would be an interesting one to bring up with Government TD's coming up to an election next year.
(http://www.rathcoolevillage.com/images/map_sm.gif)
Well like i say, whats the point in having a staium on the southside if it's harder to get to from then Parnell Park.
It's on the wrong side of the mad cow roundabout and has very poor bus services as far as i know, imagine trying to get there for a midweek evening throw in.
It is not giving the GAA good PR but i think they've every right to question the decision [ only because SDCC had agreed to let the GAA in.]
Agree 100% that the GAA in Tallaght ha nothing to fear from Rovers.
Quote from: ildanach on November 27, 2006, 01:36:02 PM
tayto,
point taken on board regarding u12 game, i was however trying to show an example (howevery bad) that the stadium being built for "the community" should be for the community, If the government want to build shamrock rovers a stadium let them just come out and say it not in this veiled form.
since when does 'community' (actually its municipal) mean multi sport? its a soccer stadium, always been seriously, there are a number of these facilities in the country and no-one ever complained before.
tayto, the SDCC had agreed to look at the feasabilty of letting the gaa in, but the decision was taken not to as the entire project would have to be restarted with a 2,000 capacity. thats ttechnically what the review is about, the decision not to make it multi sport. rovers werent violently opposed to some form of sharing originally if the capacity was suitably high, but i believe they trust kennedy as far as they can throw him at this stage and question his motives.
and to be fair, shamrock rovers fans fought long and hard to stop glenamlure being demolished, im sure some on here bought KRAM badges. to say the fans owned and run club of 2006 are responsible for louis kilcloyne in the 80s is disengenious at best. especially considering what we now know about the brown paper bag culture prevelent at the time. i presume part of this is a reward for rovers getting their act together over the past year or two.
on rathcoole, what exactly is the problem? my understanding is there is an issue with an access road sdcc are refusing to pay for. is the bolshevism in the sdcc over this related to them being dragged to the high court? why hand over the site for development and then block it?
Quote from: dublinfella on November 27, 2006, 05:57:32 PM
since when does 'community' (actually its municipal) mean multi sport? its a soccer stadium, always been seriously, there are a number of these facilities in the country and no-one ever complained before.
tayto, the SDCC had agreed to look at the feasabilty of letting the gaa in, but the decision was taken not to as the entire project would have to be restarted with a 2,000 capacity. thats ttechnically what the review is about, the decision not to make it multi sport. rovers werent violently opposed to some form of sharing originally if the capacity was suitably high, but i believe they trust kennedy as far as they can throw him at this stage and question his motives.
I said Municipal originally, thanks for correcting me. Its not a soccer stadium it is a half finished soccer stadium that now belongs to the SDCC.
Are you 100% sure that's why the SDCC changed their mind? as far as i'm aware the SDCC only changed their mind after John O' Donohue threatened to withdraw funding. Are you telling me extending the pitch would have reduced the capacity to 2k? Thats the first I've heard of that, surely that would make the whole issue cut and dried as a 2,000 seater would be far too small for Rover's needs. As far as I'm aware rovers rejected offers from the DCB to come on board long before it came to this.
Well if that is accurate, then the case makes no sense.
Surely no one would expect the SDCC and by extension Shamrock Rovers to seriously accept that much of a reduction in capacity ... if you have you figures right .. are you sure it's not a 2000 reduction in capacity?
I'm sorry dublinfella but I find it hard to believe there is something as obvious as that to make the case a waste of time.
Quote from: tayto on November 27, 2006, 06:39:01 PM
Well if that is accurate, then the case makes no sense.
Surely no one would expect the SDCC and by extension Shamrock Rovers to seriously accept that much of a reduction in capacity ... if you have you figures right .. are you sure it's not a 2000 reduction in capacity?
I'm sorry dublinfella but I find it hard to believe there is something as obvious as that to make the case a waste of time.
the report is on the interweb somewhere. just look at the site, its too short to have anything behind the goals if its a full gaa pitch and the existing stand would be half the size to accomodate the width.
the figures are accurate, which is why as a member of a club backing this move, im angry. im convinced this is an attempt to stymie rovers, not get access to the stadium. and it lets the DCB off the hook for not building the promised southside venue.
Quote from: dublinfella on November 27, 2006, 06:47:44 PM
the figures are accurate, which is why as a member of a club backing this move, im angry. im convinced this is an attempt to stymie rovers, not get access to the stadium. and it lets the DCB off the hook for not building the promised southside venue.
Fine, you believe this is a manifestation of the troglodytes in the GAA, of which there are plenty - did someone mention Fearon? However, some of us object to this on the basis that a professional soccer club is being parachuted into an area and effectively given a free stadium. Can we all have free grounds please, of a size many times what could reasonably be required??
Quote from: dublinfella on November 27, 2006, 09:29:23 PM
shamrock rovers have had a prescence in tallaght for more than 10 years. the only part of their set up not out there is the loi side. they havent parachuted anywhere. they have put in €2m to the project, so it aint free. cut the hysterionics.
Around the same time that Rovers made a deal with the SDCC, the SDCC GAVE 30 odd acres in Rathcoole to to the DCB to play with. The DCB were given free land where the Luas is being extended to and we are begrudging Rovers? ???. And everyone knows a few clubs who got handed land at some point.
As someone said, its the kid who wants the other ones present.
Define 'presence'. Perhaps you think half (quarter? one-tenth?) building a stadium amounts to a presence, but has a ball ever been kicked by the senior Rovers side in anger in Tallaght? I'm sure there are many, perhaps even dozens, of indigenous junior soccer clubs in Tallaght who are far more worthy of support than the nomads of Milltown.
As for your €2m, I refer you to the €1.5m tax write-off (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0729/1122072787844.html). Add in the €4m you yourself claim is coming from South Dublin County Council and you have what amounts to a free stadium.
If the GAA can secure such favourable terms from the authorities for the building of its facilities, then I wouldn't begrudge Rovers a cent. But considering the hysteria that were attached to the funding of Croke Park, I won't be holding my breath
Quote from: deiseach on November 27, 2006, 10:31:58 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on November 27, 2006, 09:29:23 PM
shamrock rovers have had a prescence in tallaght for more than 10 years. the only part of their set up not out there is the loi side. they havent parachuted anywhere. they have put in €2m to the project, so it aint free. cut the hysterionics.
Around the same time that Rovers made a deal with the SDCC, the SDCC GAVE 30 odd acres in Rathcoole to to the DCB to play with. The DCB were given free land where the Luas is being extended to and we are begrudging Rovers? ???. And everyone knows a few clubs who got handed land at some point.
As someone said, its the kid who wants the other ones present.
Define 'presence'. Perhaps you think half (quarter? one-tenth?) building a stadium amounts to a presence, but has a ball ever been kicked by the senior Rovers side in anger in Tallaght? I'm sure there are many, perhaps even dozens, of indigenous junior soccer clubs in Tallaght who are far more worthy of support than the nomads of Milltown.
As for your €2m, I refer you to the €1.5m tax write-off (http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/0729/1122072787844.html"). Add in the €4m you yourself claim is coming from South Dublin County Council and you have what amounts to a free stadium.
If the GAA can secure such favourable terms from the authorities for the building of its facilities, then I wouldn't begrudge Rovers a cent. But considering the 'hysterics' that were attached to the funding of Croke Park, I won't be holding my breath
im not denying they got debt written off. but what have TD even offered to put into the project?
Rovers have a couple of dozen of underage sides, womens sides, a leinster senior league side, scholarships to the IT, a basketball side all playing in tallaght. they have pitches in kiltipper where the kids play and the adults train. as you well know there is a lot more to a club than its senior side. TD are trying to close the gate to soccer 10 years too late.
Quote from: dublinfella on November 27, 2006, 10:39:07 PM
im not denying they got debt written off. but what have TD even offered to put into the project?
At the terms offered to Rovers, a bag of magic beans should be sufficient to get a large stake in the project :D
Quote from: dublinfella on November 27, 2006, 10:39:07 PM
Rovers have a couple of dozen of underage sides, womens sides, a leinster senior league side, scholarships to the IT, a basketball side all playing in tallaght. they have pitches in kiltipper where the kids play and the adults train. as you well know there is a lot more to a club than its senior side. TD are trying to close the gate to soccer 10 years too late.
Fair enough, that's all good and wholesome. I'd guess that there are many junior sides who have been doing much the same kind of thing in Tallaght for a lot longer than ten years. Given the ideological hostility that you clearly think permeates Thomas Davis as a club, perhaps you could detail the efforts they've gone to to stymie those clubs' development over the years
Don't know why they couldn't have incorporated the two pitches, the regulations for soccer pitches is 100-130m in length and 50-100m wide while it's 130-145 and 80-90 for GAA pitches. Seems to me like one pitch properly designed would have been ideal.
I do think it's wrong for Rovers to get seemingly preferential treatment as regards tax write-offs and grants - tough shit if it was run by a shower of thieves - the club should have been allowed to go under the same as would happen to any small business and/or club.
However, it seems a bit late for the GAA to be taking this to court when the thing is half finished, they should have gotten involved a lot earlier.
Quote from: deiseach on November 27, 2006, 09:16:10 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on November 27, 2006, 06:47:44 PM
the figures are accurate, which is why as a member of a club backing this move, im angry. im convinced this is an attempt to stymie rovers, not get access to the stadium. and it lets the DCB off the hook for not building the promised southside venue.
Fine, you believe this is a manifestation of the troglodytes in the GAA, of which there are plenty - did someone mention Fearon? However, some of us object to this on the basis that a professional soccer club is being parachuted into an area and effectively given a free stadium. Can we all have free grounds please, of a size many times what could reasonably be required??
Begrudgery of the highest order. Like I said earlier. Who cares if Rovers end up in Tallaght. It shouldn't bother the GAA one Iota. Careful pointing the troglodyte label. You're looking more and more like one.
Quote from: MacDanger on November 28, 2006, 04:33:35 AM
However, it seems a bit late for the GAA to be taking this to court when the thing is half finished, they should have gotten involved a lot earlier.
The project got this far under Rovers. They ran out of cash so it has been sitting half finished for years. The DCB has offered to help finish the project in the past, offers that were turned down. It is only now that the SDCC has taken the land back and decided to finish the project that this is all up in the air again.
I heard t hat there is a delay on proceedings until Wednesday week.
Honestly, how do people feel this will go. result wise.
I've a feeling you'll get a judge who'll tell TD they have no right to tell SDCC how to spend their money.
SDCC and Rovers to win. Rathcoole and any future south Dublin team (it hasn't gone away you know) to look for alternate arrangements
Well it depends on the reputation of their architect. If the decision has been rejected on the grounds that the capacity would have to be reduced to 2k, then I can see exacly why the SDCC and Rovers said no way. But if TD can prove that such a reduction is not necessary and the DCB offer to pay for the extension work then they might win. I can't see why it shouldnt be extended if that's the case. Judges don't always side with county councils thats for sure, depends onthe judge and/or legal teams as well i suppose.
O'Donoughue has specifically said he will not fund a dual puerpose stadium. Interesting to see if he's true to his word if Davis win.
Quote from: resdubwhite on November 28, 2006, 09:54:51 AM
O'Donoughue has specifically said he will not fund a dual puerpose stadium. Interesting to see if he's true to his word if Davis win.
But why not, if it can be done in a reasonable timeframe without messing up the capacity, why is he being so stuborn about it? Whats the problem with a dual purpose stadium, surely that is the way forward for sports.
Because he believes it does mess up the time frame (planning process begins again.) and budget.
And what is happening now is preferable? This could be delayed again, then either side could appeal, which could take another year ...
apparently there is no route to appeal from this decision by either party.
Well that's something. Anyway, at least it'll be sorted one way or the other in that case.
You're right. THe only sensible thing to come out of this shit storm and surprise of surprises its coming from the courts.
I think TD and the southside clubs are right. Can you imagine if the boot was on the other foot the hue and cry there would be? I'm sure Kilamcud and Ballyboden and Judes to name but a few do more for the community than Shams - why not build free stadia for them?
Unfortunately the government/powers that be do not lose these cases that often so I think being right will not be enough.
Quote from: magpie seanie on November 28, 2006, 11:26:06 AM
I think TD and the southside clubs are right. Can you imagine if the boot was on the other foot the hue and cry there would be? I'm sure Kilamcud and Ballyboden and Judes to name but a few do more for the community than Shams - why not build free stadia for them?
Unfortunately the government/powers that be do not lose these cases that often so I think being right will not be enough.
Why seanie. Why.
GAA clubs the length and breadth of the country, aswell as golf clubs the length and breadth of the country have received funding for various different reasons. Let them get on with it. Rovers will only ever get at most 2000 to 3000 at home games anyway Most of the people going to these matches are rovers supporters.
THe Gaa have nothing, absolutely nothing to fear from them.
The southside clubs have received funding alright but they've applied for it through the proper channels, grants for facilities that are open to any sports club nationwide.
This is an exceptional case, you can't deny that.
True about the crowds, Rovers will have their work cut out to attract soccer fans from the premiership on TV. Having said that they should be attracting more fans then any other club in the country and i'd be happy enough to see them back on their feet finally after being ripped off by previous chairmen.
Just think people condemning Thomas Davis for fighting their corner are wrong, they have a case whether people like it or not, and saying it is purely an anti-soccer agenda is paranoia.
Let them get on with it? The same we were let get on with running our own affairs and stadia? No - we were brow beaten into being all fluffy and friendly and community spirited. Sure let them get on with building Lansdowne as well getting 2/3 funding + cost over runs for another stadium that gaelic games are effectively barred from.
You say we have nothing to fear. I hope you are right but I fear a few things and one of them is complacency.
If I was setting up a business in the morning would the govt provide me with a premises free of charge? As Tayto pointed out there is a world of difference between this case and the funding received by volunteer based community organised not for profit clubs up and down the country. I think the opposition by GAA folk to this cast by Thomas Davis is another case of not wanting to be perceived as anti soccer. If somethnig is wrong, say its wrong and to hell with how mischevious minds perceive it.
As Tayto said. LOI Eircom league clubs will always be the poor relation when it comes to GAA. LOI attendances have been falling steadily since the 80's.
Sky sports has them by the ghoolies and its only going to get worse. I irregularly attend rovers eircom league games. For most part they are not family freindly places. This affects attendances at these games. Their average gate at div one games for them this year was about 15/1600. Only the bohs and PAts cup games got attendances over 5000. Hardly a battle for hearts and minds.
The problem for the GAA is the perception in certain areas that they are acting the bully here. Not helped By David Kennedy's last man standing comment.
If O'Donoughue comes good on the promise for funding in Rathcoole then great, or even better a redevelopment of O'toole park. There are bigger battles to fight and win.
Enticing children to play the games by promoting the game for what it is, and not going down the road of litigation is the way to go in my book.
redevelopment of O'Toole isn't a runner due to residents, Ben Dunne and the pitch and putt club course. They tried something a few years back. The plan was to turn the pitch 90% and have a stand either side. The pitch and putt club refused to budge. Since then Ben Dunne has come in and built a gym, so its definately not a runner now.
So it's Tallaght or Rathcoole. I know where I'd prefer to commute to.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on November 28, 2006, 02:56:48 PM
redevelopment of O'Toole isn't a runner due to residents, Ben Dunne and the pitch and putt club course. They tried something a few years back. The plan was to turn the pitch 90% and have a stand either side. The pitch and putt club refused to budge. Since then Ben Dunne has come in and built a gym, so its definately not a runner now.
Does the Dublin county board not own some or part of the pitch and putt course?
Why does it pop up every year on the annual report as a source of income?
Quote from: Bord na Mona man on November 28, 2006, 04:27:06 PM
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on November 28, 2006, 02:56:48 PM
redevelopment of O'Toole isn't a runner due to residents, Ben Dunne and the pitch and putt club course. They tried something a few years back. The plan was to turn the pitch 90% and have a stand either side. The pitch and putt club refused to budge. Since then Ben Dunne has come in and built a gym, so its definately not a runner now.
Does the Dublin county board not own some or part of the pitch and putt course?
Why does it pop up every year on the annual report as a source of income?
lost golf balls sold from the back of a van.
Quote from: resdubwhite on November 28, 2006, 09:20:28 AM
Fine, you believe this is a manifestation of the troglodytes in the GAA, of which there are plenty - did someone mention Fearon? However, some of us object to this on the basis that a professional soccer club is being parachuted into an area and effectively given a free stadium. Can we all have free grounds please, of a size many times what could reasonably be required??
Begrudgery of the highest order. Like I said earlier. Who cares if Rovers end up in Tallaght. It shouldn't bother the GAA one Iota. Careful pointing the troglodyte label. You're looking more and more like one.
Quote
It's not Rovers ending up in Tallaght that bothers me. If the people of Tallaght embrace them, good luck to all concerned. It's Rovers being given an almost-free stadium. No one defending the authorities who brought this to pass seem willing to face up to this. When GAA clubs and junior soccer clubs start receiving these kind of blank cheques to develop their facilities, I'll quit carping.
Just a couple of points.
1- Municipal stadiums in Europe cater for all sports. Barcelona being an example- it's an entire complex of various sports.If its not a municipal stadium it shouldn't be called such. Because obviously we have a different version of the English language in Ireland.
2- Nothing to stop the government developing a southside parnell and it wouldn't cost 11m. I don't see why the county board should have to fund that if other privately funded businesses(Rovers) are getting 11m in handouts.
3- The reality is what have the private owners of Rovers put into this scheme? The image of a lot of Dublin people in relation to Rovers is a group of wealthy individuals walking into the sunset with the proceeds leaving the club to rot. League of Ireland clubs are professional businnesses - the fact that they cannot run their finanical affairs correctly by paying ridiculous sums of money to players is not the Gaa's fault nor the excehequers fault. Why should the taxpayer have to fund this.
I don't pretend to be a soccer fan - but if the government don't bail out private enterprises that go bust why should allowances be made for Rovers?- who have proven themselves unable to manage their financial affairs. The Gaa clubs are entitled to a reciprocal amount of finance which would be more than adequate to fund a southside parnell that has been promised by our alleged Sports Minister in the past.
So Dublinfella, when you said the capacity would have to be reduced to 2,000 if the ground was expanded for a GAA pitch, did you not know that Thomas Davis had expert advice to the contrary or did you just forget to mention it? Fairly massive thing to leave out.
Quote from: dublinfella on November 29, 2006, 12:13:46 AM
intereting we have slowley gotten around to o'toole park and the vested interests within the south dublin clubs that havent had led them to have any inclination to build anything till now....
wrong. the exact opposite was said. A redevelopment plan was put into place for O'Toole Park but couldn't proceed due to the reasons outlined. You can infer from that that the need for a 'southside Parnell Park' was highlighted years ago.
Quote from: bottlethrower7 on November 29, 2006, 09:18:59 AM
Quote from: dublinfella on November 29, 2006, 12:13:46 AM
intereting we have slowley gotten around to o'toole park and the vested interests within the south dublin clubs that havent had led them to have any inclination to build anything till now....
wrong. the exact opposite was said. A redevelopment plan was put into place for O'Toole Park but couldn't proceed due to the reasons outlined. You can infer from that that the need for a 'southside Parnell Park' was highlighted years ago.
It would seem dublinfella isnt the most objective person when it comes to this discussion.
Quote from: tayto on November 29, 2006, 01:54:20 AM
So Dublinfella, when you said the capacity would have to be reduced to 2,000 if the ground was expanded for a GAA pitch, did you not know that Thomas Davis had expert advice to the contrary or did you just forget to mention it? Fairly massive thing to leave out.
Oddly enough Tayto. THis doesn't make a bit of difference as TD are bringing SDCC to court to challenge the procedures that the SDCC took in making the decision. Offering an alternate layout is not within the judges remit.
Quote from: tayto on November 29, 2006, 01:54:20 AM
So Dublinfella, when you said the capacity would have to be reduced to 2,000 if the ground was expanded for a GAA pitch, did you not know that Thomas Davis had expert advice to the contrary or did you just forget to mention it? Fairly massive thing to leave out.
first i, or anyone, heard of the alternative architects report, the results of which arent public, was in the indo earlier this week. only TD, Croke Park and the cinsultants have seen it and know what it does or doesnt say.
but as reddubswhite says, its irrelevent to the actual court case. this is about whether sdcc broke the law, not the fact they pissed off some powerful gaa figures. and i havent seen anything so far that suggests they can win this case.
The minister seems to just be against redeveloping the stadium:
"The GAA can't be facilitated in the stadium – it is as simple as that," he said.
"I don't know why they are persisting with it. They are simply holding up Shamrock Rovers from moving in, that's all that will come of any action.
"It can go to a hearing but there will be no climbdown by the Government.
"It is proposed to be the new home stadium for Shamrock Rovers and will have a capacity for 6,000 spectators. The stadium would need to be redesigned to accommodate Gaelic games," the Minister added.
interesting developments on Rathcoole from Dublin CEO John Costello: Report to Convention ....
In 1995, the Board negotiated the purchase of 26.2 acres of land to the East of Rathcoole from South Dublin County Council. The Council agreed to provide a right-of-way to the public road so that the Board could access the lands. At that time the Council expected this right-of-way to be through the existing Rathcoole Public Park. However, their efforts to deliver on this commitment were resisted by the local community and, accordingly, the lands have not yet been legally conveyed to the Board, despite the payment in full of the agreed purchase price. There have been numerous representations by the Board to the Council but to no avail, although the Council continue to insist that they are actively endeavouring to find a way to deliver on the access commitment.
In March 2006, we asked Michael Hand of PH McCarthy Consulting Engineers (and also Vice-Chairman of Ballinteer St John's) to assist us in discussions with the Council. He established that the Council was involved in a Part 8 planning procedure for the so-called Rathcoole/Saggart Distributor Road with the project being on Public Display. The route of this road was along the southern boundary of the Board's lands and, accordingly, the Council saw this as facilitating the necessary access. However, it became evident that there was significant local opposition to the Distributor Road, although indications were that there was still strong local support for the Board's proposals to locate playing facilities on its lands.
The Board lodged a letter of support for the Council's Part 8 proposals. Subsequent discussions between our Consulting Engineers and Council Officials on the one hand, and the Officials and the Councillors on the other, yielded a compromise whereby a 1km length of new roadway from Stoney Lane to the boundary of the Board's lands was formally adopted by the Council at their July 2006 meeting. This would give access to the Board's lands from the west, when constructed.
We met with the Council's Director of Services for Planning at the end of October last who confirmed the following: -
- The Council is advancing land purchase procedures for the approved stretch of Distributor Road;
- The Council has funds in place to construct the road;
- The road would release some 25 acres of the Council's own lands for social housing and, accordingly, its completion will receive top priority;
- Given a fair wind, the Council anticipates completion of the road by the end of 2008; and
- The Council has offered to hold pre-planning consultations with the Board's representatives with a view to fixing site boundaries and agreeing an acceptable site configuration.
In view of this positive response from the Council, we have instructed the Consulting Engineers to engage with the Officials so that a planning application can be lodged at the earliest possible date. Arising from these discussions, it will be possible to complete the legal transfer of the lands to the Board. As there are a number of complexities to be resolved, we would not expect the planning or transfer processes to be advanced until early 2007.
TD failed today in their application to delay next weeks judicial review fora year until the result of a pending Supreme Court challenge to a JR application that was recently rejected.
Does anyone honestly still believe that this isnt a blocking move? Why delay the process another year if there is a genuine need to build this ground?
You made your mind up a long time ago that's what they're at, so it's little surprise that's the slant you've taken on this.
There could be any number of reason to look for an adjournment. To force the minister to think again for instance. To see what happens with Rathcoole [paid for 12 years ago and progress has been delayed by the council for 12 years now!]. That's just off the top of my head.
Quote from: tayto on December 07, 2006, 08:14:58 PM
You made your mind up a long time ago that's what they're at, so it's little surprise that's the slant you've taken on this.
There could be any number of reason to look for an adjournment. To force the minister to think again for instance. To see what happens with Rathcoole [paid for 12 years ago and progress has been delayed by the council for 12 years now!]. That's just off the top of my head.
Are you playing devils advocate or what?
What possible other reason is there to attempt to delay the high court hearing a case they are bringing? ::)
Eh, I just listed two ...
You've already said they can't win and that they don't have a case. In my opinion they have a legitimate grievance and have every right to pursue it by judicial review.
Just because they're playing hardball, ie. seeking a delay. That doesn't mean anything about their motive, stop being so reactionary. You would make a lousy negotiator. [or politician]
Think about it. A delay would put serious pressure on certain minister to review the whole scenario, including his decision. Maybe, just maybe, they're using this as a tool to finally get Rathcoole moving, seems from John Costello's report to Congress that progress is finally happening. It's about bloody time.
Quote from: tayto on December 07, 2006, 09:07:20 PM
Eh, I just listed two ...
You've already said they can't win and that they don't have a case. In my opinion they have a legitimate grievance and have every right to pursue it by judicial review.
Just because they're playing hardball, ie. seeking a delay. That doesn't mean anything about their motive, stop being so reactionary. You would make a lousy negotiator. [or politician]
Think about it. A delay would put serious pressure on certain minister to review the whole scenario, including his decision. Maybe, just maybe, they're using this as a tool to finally get Rathcoole moving, seems from John Costello's report to Congress that progress is finally happening. It's about bloody time.
You have contradicted yourself there.
Are you accepting this court case case has nothing to do with getting Gaelic Games into Tallaght stadium?
Its an appaling waste of the courts time and association money and highly unfair on Shamrock Rovers if TD are bringing this case to apply pressure on an entirely seperate issue.
Quote from: dublinfella on December 07, 2006, 09:29:14 PM
Quote from: tayto on December 07, 2006, 09:07:20 PM
Eh, I just listed two ...
You've already said they can't win and that they don't have a case. In my opinion they have a legitimate grievance and have every right to pursue it by judicial review.
Just because they're playing hardball, ie. seeking a delay. That doesn't mean anything about their motive, stop being so reactionary. You would make a lousy negotiator. [or politician]
Think about it. A delay would put serious pressure on certain minister to review the whole scenario, including his decision. Maybe, just maybe, they're using this as a tool to finally get Rathcoole moving, seems from John Costello's report to Congress that progress is finally happening. It's about bloody time.
You have contradicted yourself there.
Are you accepting this court case case has nothing to do with getting Gaelic Games into Tallaght stadium?
Its an appaling waste of the courts time and association money and highly unfair on Shamrock Rovers if TD are bringing this case to apply pressure on an entirely seperate issue.
I'm not contradicting myself, I don't know exactly what their motives are, and unlike you I don't claim to. My only argument is that Thomas Davis aren't just on some half baked anti-soccer scheme, they have a valid argument. You're suggesting they're trying to keep Rovers out of Tallaght when Rover's already have juvenile teams in the area and it's only a matter of time till Rovers play there. Why would Thomas Davis go to all this trouble to delay the inevitable. It doesn't add up.
I'm sure Thomas Davis would prefer access to Tallaght then any other option but a delay could serve various different purposes. If Rathcoole suddenly made progress then who knows, maybe they would drop the case. Do you expect them to just take the ministers word that something will happen out in Rathcoole? We all know well enough this government are big on promises.
It's not fair on Rovers that they use this issue as a bargaining chip? It's not really fair to say that the GAA isn't welcome in a municipal stadium. It's not fair that the SDCC have dragged their heels over Rathcoole this long after being paid 12 years ago for the land.
Quote from: dublinfella on December 07, 2006, 09:43:28 PM
its a cynical ploy and their real agenda was exposed today.
... only to those who had come to that conclusion a long time ago. Asking for a delay could mean a myriad of things but you've already made up your mind. You had before now so it's little surprse that you think this has blown the thing wide open.
You've yet to concede that Thomas have even remotely maybe might even have the smallest inkling of a point. You've been going on about this case being 'a cynical ploy' from the get go.
Frankly your inability to admit that it would be advantageous for Thomas Davis. and by extension the Dublin county board, to have use of the stadium totally undermines your view point.
Quote from: dublinfella on December 07, 2006, 09:43:28 PM
secondly it clearly points that TD dont want the court to decide on it, why ask for a years delay in a case you are bringing if you are trying to constructively get into this stadium quickly?
eh, maybe because theres an election next year. Its a stroke of genius if you ask me.
Said it beforwe and will say it again.
Its time for HQ to give the wink and nod that this issue will belinked to next years deal at Croker.
No tallaght? then no more freeloaders at Croker next year.
We get shat on the once National Stadium at Lansdowne.(Excluded, while IRFU adn FAI get twice level of grant aid).
We get shat on in provision in the new National Sports Campus.
We get shat on in Tallaght.
We get a shit deal at Croker - even having to pay for the lights that the IRFU and FAI need, not us.
Hopefully the Govt will see sense and back down.
Quote from: dublinfella on December 07, 2006, 07:16:39 PM
TD failed today in their application to delay next weeks judicial review fora year until the result of a pending Supreme Court challenge to a JR application that was recently rejected.
Ah well, that's it then, they're beat, still good to see the structures within the state like separation of the legislature from the judiciary are still alive and well, who appoints judges again, the government in power is it?? But, luckily they would not appoint judges purely based on their political affiliations would they? Unlikely as that would lead to a public outcry, wouldn't it??
Quote from: snatter on December 08, 2006, 10:17:09 AM
Said it beforwe and will say it again.
Its time for HQ to give the wink and nod that this issue will belinked to next years deal at Croker.
No tallaght? then no more freeloaders at Croker next year.
We get shat on the once National Stadium at Lansdowne.(Excluded, while IRFU adn FAI get twice level of grant aid).
We get shat on in provision in the new National Sports Campus.
We get shat on in Tallaght.
We get a shit deal at Croker - even having to pay for the lights that the IRFU and FAI need, not us.
Hopefully the Govt will see sense and back down.
so was tallaght linked to the cp deal? Tallaght was always a soccer ground.
Who promised LR to the GAA and did they have the authority to do so?
This week the GAA got a shit load of exchequer funding for stadia in kildare and monaghan. thats just this week. and its more than soccer got for the entire year 2006. in one week. good action CP.
€3.6m from the taxpayer for floodlights. wrong there. see the new thread on it,
lets get f**king real. we arent victims in terms of funding. but suing the dept of sportg? hand that feeds is getting bit
Quote from: dublinfella on December 09, 2006, 02:00:35 AM
lets get f**king real. we arent victims in terms of funding. but suing the dept of sportg? hand that feeds is getting bit
That might be an argument the GAA were dependent on the government for handouts, that's not the case, in addition if the dept. of sport were to deny any more grants to the gaa, would that be considered a vote winner?? The beauty of a democracy (in theory anyway), is that the govt. reflect the will of the people.
and it also gets the gov off the hook in relation to them directly providing feck all sporting facilities for communities across the country
Quote from: neilthemac on December 09, 2006, 02:12:13 PM
and it also gets the gov off the hook in relation to them directly providing feck all sporting facilities for communities across the country
but they are trying to build a municipal facility here.... whats next, a golf club objecting to a swimming pool being built?
Quote from: dublinfella on December 09, 2006, 03:36:01 PM
as i have said before, there are dozens of municipal sports facilities in the 26 that the GAA never had a problem with
... is that supposed to be a point?
Quote from: tayto on December 09, 2006, 03:55:10 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on December 09, 2006, 03:36:01 PM
as i have said before, there are dozens of municipal sports facilities in the 26 that the GAA never had a problem with
... is that supposed to be a point?
yes, why the sudden desire to share other codes facilites without letting them use all but one of ours? why block this specific project on a 'principled' point while ignoring dozens of similar ones? why the sudden desire to proetct the taxpayer when we get more out of the exchequer than all other sports combined?
its childinsh ingratitude.
Quote from: dublinfella on December 09, 2006, 03:59:56 PM
Quote from: tayto on December 09, 2006, 03:55:10 PM
Quote from: dublinfella on December 09, 2006, 03:36:01 PM
as i have said before, there are dozens of municipal sports facilities in the 26 that the GAA never had a problem with
... is that supposed to be a point?
yes, why the sudden desire to share other codes facilites without letting them use all but one of ours? why block this specific project on a 'principled' point while ignoring dozens of similar ones? why the sudden desire to proetct the taxpayer when we get more out of the exchequer than all other sports combined?
its childinsh ingratitude.
I'm aware of what you are trying to say, I was asking if you think those points further your argument.
Honestly if that's the best you can do, there really is no point in debating this any further.
about time the minister woke up and sorted this out, he is responsible for this mess afterall.
Minister softens stance on Tallaght Stadium
AN APPARENT softening of attitude by the Minister for Sport on the use of the proposed Tallaght Stadium has raised Dublin GAA hopes that they may yet get access to the ground.
Minister John O'Donoghue had previously taken a very hard-line attitude on the development, only sanctioning funding to complete it if it was to be used as a soccer-only venue, primarily for Shamrock Rovers.
Attitude
A New Year statement by the Sports Minister indicates a distinct shift in attitude and leaves it up to South Dublin Council (SDCC) ultimately to decide if any other sports can use it.
However, the Irish Independent understands that the comments only pave the way for the SDCC to allow juvenile GAA into the venue, which would not necessitate any increase to the pitch size.
"While the stadium is scheduled for completion as a soccer facility, the Minister would have no objections to South Dublin County Council, which will manage the facility, sanctioning its use by other sporting bodies compatible with it remaining available for senior soccer fixtures," the statement says.
O'Donoghue's insistence that the venue is soccer-only caused SDCC councillors to change the initial terms of its planning (of December 2005), which was for a multi-sport municipal facility, a decision which local GAA club Thomas Davis are contesting through the courts by seeking a judicial review.
That is due to be heard in the High Court on March 16 and is holding up the completion of the venue.
Ill-fated
As it stands, the SDCC's plan is to complete a 6,000-seater stadium for soccer, specifically to house Rovers, who started the ill-fated project before building stalled and it needed local government intervention to bail it out.
The Minister continues to argue that increasing the pitch size to accommodate Gaelic games would considerably lessen its seating capacity.
"A pitch larger than that required for soccer cannot easily be accommodated within the present site," O'Donoghue reiterates. However, some will take O'Donoghue's use of the phrase "cannot easily be accommodated" as not ruling it out completely.
And his subsequent comment about having no objections if SDCC sanction its use for other sports as long as it gives priority to soccer, does seem in sharp contrast to his previous stance.
To accommodate senior GAA, the pitch would have to be lengthened and widened to a 140mx85m dimension.
Even if this remains unlikely, O'Donoghue's latest statement leaves the door open for the GAA, at juvenile level at least, to have some access to the new venue if SDCC are agreeable. The SDCC will not make any comment on the venue at present because they are involved in legal proceedings with Thomas Davis.
The completion of the stadium and its use is undoubtedly a hot potato locally ahead of the upcoming General Election.
A group of local clubs - including Thomas Davis, St Jude's and St Mark's - have all lobbied for it to become a municipal multi-sport facility that could also accommodate GAA.
Studying
South Dublin CC and the Minister have both repeatedly said that the Dublin County Board should concentrate instead on developing their own 24-acre site in Rathcoole and the SDCC is currently studying a proposal to solve an access problem to this site.
Cliona Foley
Ii love the way they say the GAA should concentrate on Rathcoole as if we havent been waiting on planning out there for over a decade after buying it.
of course he changed his attitude. Theres an election this year so he was always going to pass the buck. Charlie O'Connor and Conor Lenihan's jobs depended on him doing so.
So maybe, just maybe, Paranoid conspiracy theories put aside for a couple of minutes. Maybe Thomas Davis looking for a delay might have been a wise move.
Quote from: tayto on January 04, 2007, 12:56:36 PM
So maybe, just maybe, Paranoid conspiracy theories put aside for a couple of minutes. Maybe Thomas Davis looking for a delay might have been a wise move.
yes, I made the point at the time. They knew only too well what they were doing.
Thats been Davis's plan all along. Drag it out until someone shifts their stance.
Just an addendum. How do the DCB plan to use this ground whilst rovers (anchor tennant) are involved in the EL and play using the same calendar as the DCB (March - Nov).
To me this indicates access to the ground was always a secondary concern for the gang of six.
Arent most eircom league matches played of a friday night. Rovers would have a home match every two weeks or so? considering it will be floodlit that leaves plenty of scope for use by southside clubs.
yeah but there fixture list is more of a loose arrangement rather than anything concrete when it comes to EL.
matches have been changed with hours notice. I shit you not. I presume rovers will also have number of teams looking to use it also.
there is also the very very distinct possiblity pats will be ground sharing within a couple of years.
so you can imagine the shenanigans.
I thinl Rathcoole is the way to go personally. less hassle for all involved and both sports are catered for.
O'donoughue has already expressed that there will be significant funding for it.
I'd say anchor tennants or not if another fixutre has been arranged in the stadium then it's hard luck, you can't expect the stadium to be kept free on the off chance you might chop and change at the last minute. Surely it's this type of messing that the FAI will be trying to stamp out not they've got control of the league.
Besides Havent Rovers managed to share other clubs grounds up until now without too many of these sorts of problems. I'm not quite sure how a vague logistical problem like that indicates anything about the GAA clubs motives. What other teams do rovers have that need access to a 6k seater stadium? Maybe the odd underage final, there's still plenty of room schedule wise. The DCB mayonly want to hold later championship matches between two southside clubs there, or maybe the odd dublin league match, it's not like they'll need access to it 24-7.
Pats arent even on the radar yet. [another club to cash in it's assets and get free use of a stadium?]
He has said there'd be funding for Rathcoole but the planning is still an issue that is unresolved, that's 12 years and counting, i'm aur eif planning had gone through like it was promised bythe SDCC then the DCB would have developed the site by now and this whole issue wouldnt exist.
No.
Pats are very much on the radar, hence FAI involvement.
Pats major contributor is about to up sticks. Bye bye inchicore.
the thing with tolka is the pitch markings.
Surely there is going to be a big problem with pitch markings in tallaght.
There'd be rovers under twenty one teams. The Rovers IT tallaght among others looking for access to the ground, as well as I presume the ROI youth teams looking to play there also. The seasons clash badly.
Do you know what sort of access the DCB are looking for to the ground? What stage of plannig is rathcoole at?
I thought the DCB wanted to use rathcoole as a centre of excellence and not to be bothered with building a small stadium there.
Rathcoole is at the same stage of planning as it was when it was bought, well aparently a bit of progress has been made in the last couple of months, nevermind planning for a stadium it has taken 12 years to get access to the site sorted. It's a farce, for the minister to say we should 'just' develop it is ignoring the huge problems the DCb have had getting any progress there.
Sorry if i don't just symapthise with Pats, Their benefactor is upping sticks is bad news for their fans but that shouldnt give them higher priority access to a minicipal stadium in Tallaght then Tallaght GAA clubs.
I'm not suggesting they are, but slots in tallaght will be hard to come by.
Build our own, let the soccer boys at it.
i think you're making too much of the fixture pileup, just my opinion.
they can remark lansdowne handy enough - except when the rugby boys have those huge ads in the middle of the pitch. ::)
develop Rathcoole (if possible)
use the public park being built at the Tallaght Stadium until then...
Well there'd be no need for Rathcoole unless the fixxture thing at tallaght was a complete nightmare.
Why build a stadium unless you really need it. Tallaght is much much easier to get to then Rathcoole from most of south dublin don't forget!
Quote from: tayto on January 04, 2007, 03:05:24 PM
i think you're making too much of the fixture pileup, just my opinion.
they can remark lansdowne handy enough - except when the rugby boys have those huge ads in the middle of the pitch. ::)
I'll tell you why i think its an issue. Because the seasons do clash badly. I'd hate to think the DCB are spending time on this, and then be bit part players. However if the planning process for Rathcoole is approved down to this pressure then fair play to all involved.
Softening his stance? He has just repeated what his position has been from day one. Gaelic Games more than welcome but not at the added cost and reduced capacity that redisigning would entail. The Dept are committed to what is still the DCB policy. A stadium in Rathcoole.
Quite clever from the minister, gives TD an face saver if they want it.Remeber the affidavit they are going to the High Court with:
'The youth of Tallaght will be restricted to a diet of Association football' and that a soccer only ground would place the applicant at a severe disadvantage in attracting the youth of Tallaght to our club (Thomas Davis), our sport and the GAA culture'
They have their 'youth' facility if they want it. As they always did. And progress on Rathcoole.
I would love to be a fly on the wall next time TD apply for a grant from the Dept if they dont drop it now....
Dublinfella i'd like to educate you on the Rathcoole development.
A couple of significant points.
There was no planning permission granted to do anything in relation to the Rathcoole site initially because the SDCC wanted to allow the 'infrastructure' to catch up and that included sporting amenities. The county board didn't bother applying because it hadn't a prayer
Quoting the SDCC "South Dublin County Council should identify a suitable location for the development of a major stadium (for up to 20,000 persons) for major GAA games to be held."
As I understand it there has been several local objections to any proposed road. The reality is this in relation to planning in Dublin unless it has the backing of the Government it won't happen. There has been no commitment by the SDCC in relation to the proposed stadium above.
Quote from: Josey Whales on January 04, 2007, 10:59:09 PM
Dublinfella i'd like to educate you on the Rathcoole development.
A couple of significant points.
There was no planning permission granted to do anything in relation to the Rathcoole site initially because the SDCC wanted to allow the 'infrastructure' to catch up and that included sporting amenities. The county board didn't bother applying because it hadn't a prayer
Quoting the SDCC "South Dublin County Council should identify a suitable location for the development of a major stadium (for up to 20,000 persons) for major GAA games to be held."
As I understand it there has been several local objections to any proposed road. The reality is this in relation to planning in Dublin unless it has the backing of the Government it won't happen. There has been no commitment by the SDCC in relation to the proposed stadium above.
Hold on, the DCB bought a site, admittedly for feck all, that the 'didnt have a prayer' of getting permission for?
The infrastructure was to follow the facilities. Why would SDCC build a road into a field the DCB havent decided what to do with?
The Minister last year
The GAA can't be facilitated in the stadium – it is as simple as that. I don't know why they are persisting with it. They are simply holding up Shamrock Rovers from moving in, that's all that will come of any action. It can go to a hearing but there will be no climbdown by the Government. It is proposed to be the new home stadium for Shamrock Rovers and will have a capacity for 6,000 spectators. The stadium would need to be redesigned to accommodate Gaelic games.
The GAA have their own site in Rathcoole and there are 24 acres there that are to be developed and I have said that I would help them with that . but that's not enough for them.
and again in today's Indo
South Dublin CC and the Minister have both repeatedly said that the Dublin County Board should concentrate instead on developing their own 24-acre site in Rathcoole and the SDCC is currently studying a proposal to solve an access problem to this site.
JW, are you with a straight face telling me that the DCB bought lands with no intention of ever developing them? Why are politicians offereing to help build a stadium there? There has been no progress because for some reason the DCB havent done anything with a prime parcel of land gifted to them, not because SDCC are acting up.
I can think of one logical reason why anyone would sit on land in South Dublin. The same reason Ballyboden did.....
Hang on a second- you really are staring to piss people off with your one sided version of things.
No Govt Minister at any stage prior to O Donoghue saying that ever said they would help with any gaa development at Rathcoole. That was simply political opportunism by ODonoghue when the first objection came in from TD he needed something to fall back on.
With all due respect how the hell do you build a site without a road in? Do you helicopter in the digging equipment? I don't think many of the residents would have been jumping through hoops with heavy equipment been re-directed their way because there was no road in. You build the road before you build anything else- any planner will tell you that and I know a few of them.
As regards finanical assiistance from the Govt- maybe you could redirect me to some speech made by O Donoghue where he outlines the finanical assistance you re talking about? No i tell you what let's invest it in a failed business down the road who made a balls of it themselves. This financial assistance you are talking about doesn't exist.
I would also be interested to know- where abouts the SDCC has earmarked for the 20,000 Gaa stadium that they themselves committed themselves to. Is it any wonder some of the Gaa people out there are pissed off? As far as I'm concerned Rovers can have their poxy stadium and the Govt should now act on their promise of building this Gaa stadium and outline what financial assistance is available for it. A decade from now we''ll still be waiting.
THe DCB have earmarked Rathcoole a while back as a centre of excellence. I've read this on several different occasions, both offically and through boards.
If I can find a link I'll post it.
The DCB never planned for a stadium there but the dept of sport want to put one there.
That I'm sure of.
I'm not particurarly comfortable with the GAA coveting their neighbours goods. it looks petty.
QuoteI'm not particularly comfortable with the GAA coveting their neighbours goods. it looks petty.
That's the whole point of this aggro - these grounds are not our neighbour's goods - IT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY, the development is almost entirely paid for by PUBLIC MONEY. Before the minister intervened, SDCC had decided that a multi sport MUNICIPAL stadium was the way to go.
The GAA community feel aggrieved that they are being excluded from a substantively public bankrolled project. The level of funding given to this project is markedly disproportionate when compared to GAA developments.
This argument is about equity and fairness, full stop.
Quote from: snatter on January 05, 2007, 10:13:02 AM
QuoteI'm not particularly comfortable with the GAA coveting their neighbours goods. it looks petty.
That's the whole point of this aggro - these grounds are not our neighbour's goods - IT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY, the development is almost entirely paid for by PUBLIC MONEY. Before the minister intervened, SDCC had decided that a multi sport MUNICIPAL stadium was the way to go.
The GAA community feel aggrieved that they are being excluded from a substantively public bankrolled project. The level of funding given to this project is markedly disproportionate when compared to GAA developments.
This argument is about equity and fairness, full stop.
And there we have it. You've got it in one. Why some people are angry with TD over this just goes to show how smal minded some people can be. Imagine standing up for your rights like that.
Thats a matter of opinion.
I see a public resource that the GAA applied to have access to. Were refused, threw their dodi out of the pram and went to court.
like i said before. THere are bigger fish to fry than Shamrock rovers.
Dublinfella.
See a reasoned debate without getting personal.
reservoir dub
first you said
Quote
I'm not particurarly comfortable with the GAA coveting their neighbours goods. it looks petty.
then
Quote
I see a public resource that the GAA applied to have access to. Were refused, threw their dodi out of the pram and went to court.
feel free to let me know if I've taken your comments out of context but it appears that you're either being inconsistent or else you've just changed your viewpoint.
i know i know.
on the basis that Rovers were first in and screwed it up, and were bailed out it is a suppose a little bit of both.
I'm more inclined recently to see where Davis are coming from, even though the stalling tactics don't sit well with me.
... you can't deny the delaying tactic has softened up the minister who is considerably less adamant then he was before christmas. [maybe he read this forum!?!?]
O'Donoghue back-tracks on Tallaght stadium
January 5, 2007
John O'Donoghue TD, the Minister for Sport, has back-tracked on a previous assurance to Shamrock Rovers that the proposed municipal stadium in Tallaght would be developed as a soccer-only venue.
Local GAA clubs, led by Thomas Davis, have objected to the proposals on the grounds that the stadium should be amenable to Gaelic Games.
A High Court judicial review, adjourned last month, will be heard in March, but the prospects of the stadium being built as a soccer-exclusive entity appears to have diminished with Mr O'Donoghue's decision to leave a final call on the stadium to South Dublin County Council.
A statement read: "While the stadium is scheduled for completion as a soccer facility, the Minister would have no objections to South Dublin County Council, which will manage the facility, sanctioning its use by other sporting bodies compatible with it remaining available for senior soccer fixtures."
http://www.eleven-a-side.com/shamrockrovers/irish_soccer_detail.asp?newsid=25920
Quote from: tayto on January 05, 2007, 10:16:55 AM
Quote from: snatter on January 05, 2007, 10:13:02 AM
QuoteI'm not particularly comfortable with the GAA coveting their neighbours goods. it looks petty.
That's the whole point of this aggro - these grounds are not our neighbour's goods - IT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY, the development is almost entirely paid for by PUBLIC MONEY. Before the minister intervened, SDCC had decided that a multi sport MUNICIPAL stadium was the way to go.
The GAA community feel aggrieved that they are being excluded from a substantively public bankrolled project. The level of funding given to this project is markedly disproportionate when compared to GAA developments.
This argument is about equity and fairness, full stop.
And there we have it. You've got it in one. Why some people are angry with TD over this just goes to show how smal minded some people can be. Imagine standing up for your rights like that.
what 'right' are TD going to court to defend? the 'right' to use other sports facilities? does this mean other sports have the 'right' to use GAA facilities involving public land/money?
I think this debate has gone beyond pedantic at this stage and has probably strengthened the divide between the codes. As Sean Diffley points out in the indo today how - Seapoint rugby club- cabinteely soccer club and cabinteely boys gaa club all manage to use the same all-weather pitch and all use seapoint rugby clubs clubhouse for their meetings without any rancour.
Says everything in my view.
We have clowns like O Donogue as our sports ministers who talk shite about buliding things and then blame somebody else when they don't. It's as if he thinks we should anoint him when he decides to invest in sporting facilities in the country. The reality is this Government is the most pathetic example in the modern world of a developed country and its investment in sport. The lack of basic facilities is a National disgrace and to have to listen to his panderings and his 'lets shift the blame elsewhere' makes me want to throw up.
Quote from: Josey Whales on January 06, 2007, 03:31:33 PM
I think this debate has gone beyond pedantic at this stage and has probably strengthened the divide between the codes. As Sean Diffley points out in the indo today how - Seapoint rugby club- cabinteely soccer club and cabinteely boys gaa club all manage to use the same all-weather pitch and all use seapoint rugby clubs clubhouse for their meetings without any rancour.
Says everything in my view.
We have clowns like O Donogue as our sports ministers who talk shite about buliding things and then blame somebody else when they don't. It's as if he thinks we should anoint him when he decides to invest in sporting facilities in the country. The reality is this Government is the most pathetic example in the modern world of a developed country and its investment in sport. The lack of basic facilities is a National disgrace and to have to listen to his panderings and his 'lets shift the blame elsewhere' makes me want to throw up.
while the DCB fail to build a southside venue (despite having the land) and support a member club blocking a much needed development in another sport to try and force use of a stadium thats not big enough for the county and is too big for the club.....
glasshouses and all that.
I dont think anyone in Cabinteely resorted to the high court to force their way into the arrangement. anyway, a soccer and GAA club use different pitches in the same park and have meetings/socials in a nearby rugby club. very different to the Tallaght situation.
someone PLEASE shut this discussion down.
its going around in circles
we'll just let the courts decide!