Thomas Davis v the Government

Started by dublinfella, November 25, 2006, 01:58:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

resdubwhite

#45
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.

tayto

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.

resdubwhite

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

tayto

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.

resdubwhite

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.

tayto

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.

resdubwhite

Because he believes it does mess up the time frame (planning process begins again.) and budget.

tayto

And what is happening now is preferable? This could be delayed again, then either side could appeal, which could take another year ...

resdubwhite

apparently there is no route to appeal from this decision by either party.

tayto

Well that's something. Anyway, at least it'll be sorted one way or the other in that case.

resdubwhite

You're right. THe only sensible thing to come out of this shit storm and surprise of surprises its coming from the courts.

magpie seanie

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.

resdubwhite

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.

tayto

#58
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.

magpie seanie

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.