O'Donoughue starts ranting again...

[dublinfella]

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

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

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

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

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

How do Shamrock Rovers qualify for this largesse?
?

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

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

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

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

[Hardy]

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

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

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

[Billys Boots]

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

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

[dublinfella]

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


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


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

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

[bottlethrower7]

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

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

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

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

[dublinfella]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dubnut]

soccer plant

[magickingdom]

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

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


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

[Hound]

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

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


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

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

[dublinfella]

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

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

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

[snatter]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irish Times 17.03.07

GAA club seeking to alter stadium decision

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

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

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

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

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

[snatter]

Dublinfella,

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

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

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

[The Biff]

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

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

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

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

[magickingdom]

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


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

[Rossfan]

the GAA never partook in the public consultation. 

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