Thomas Davis v the Government

[resdubwhite]

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. 

[bottlethrower7]

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.

[tayto]

So it's Tallaght or Rathcoole. I know where I'd prefer to commute to.

[Bord na Mona man]

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?

[resdubwhite]

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.

[deiseach]

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.

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.

[Josey Whales]

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.

[tayto]

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.

[bottlethrower7]

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.

[tayto]

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.

[resdubwhite]

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.

[dublinfella]

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.

[tayto]

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.

[tayto]

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.

[dublinfella]

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?