Thomas Davis v the Government

[tayto]

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.

[dublinfella]

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? 

[tayto]

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.

[dublinfella]

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.

[tayto]

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.

[tayto]

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.

[bottlethrower7]

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.

[snatter]

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.

[Bogball XV]

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??

[dublinfella]

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

[Bogball XV]

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.

[neilthemac]

and it also gets the gov off the hook in relation to them directly providing feck all sporting facilities for communities across the country

[dublinfella]

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?

[tayto]

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?

[dublinfella]

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.