Thomas Davis Lose

[Hardy]

Whatever you think about Rovers, the people of Tallaght have a right to have a soccer team that competes in the LOI

I don't get that, MS. I might as well argue that the people of East Meath have the right to have a local horse running in the Grand National.

[tayto]

Whatever you think about Rovers, the people of Tallaght have a right to have a soccer team that competes in the LOI

I don't get that, MS. I might as well argue that the people of East Meath have the right to have a local horse running in the Grand National.

Yea, and screw the people of Milltown, sher they don't deserve a local team.

[stephenite]

Shamrock Rovers are apparently a business - they have a right to operate as a business. The good people of Ballina Town FC deserve to be in the LOI, maybe the Mayo County Council can bankroll them

[his holiness nb]

Whatever you think about Rovers, the people of Tallaght have a right to have a soccer team that competes in the LOI

I don't get that, MS. I might as well argue that the people of East Meath have the right to have a local horse running in the Grand National.

Was wondering that myself, how does any area have the right to a professional sports organisation?

By that logic every large town in Ireland could apply for a free stadium and LOI football team.

[Rossfan]

Remember where someone ( I wonder who ? ) told us that Freeloaders Stadium would be completed for €4m or so??
Well well -on Aertel last night and in one of today's papers -a piece about Seamus Brennan,Min for Sport visiting the partly built site in Tallaght yesterday with Officials of S Dublin Co Council.
The Council hopes to start soon on Phase 1 -complete the Stand and the surrounds of the pitch at a cost of NINE MILLION EURO.
No mention of Phase 2 which will cost ? MILLIONS.
Add in the  €1.9 MILLION Grant paid some years ago and the €1.5 MILLION the Council had to pay for their own land and we will more than likely hit the FIFTEEN MILLION EURO.
Of course that's nothing compared to the THREE HUNDRED MILLION the Govt will put in for Lansdowne Road.

[Son_of_Sam]

How much for a house in Milltown?,
The one that your owners did sell,
How much for a house in Milltown?,
Sure you lot couldn't afford a doorbell?

[lynchbhoy]

cant wait for all this to die down.

I hope and expect that Dublin county board look for a 'municipal' stadium to be build on the southside for Dublin GAA teams to train and play on.

it should get the full funding without fronting any money themselves, as it the precedent.

That way too, we can get all weather pitches built all around Dublin (and then around the country) - municipal pitches of course

[dublinfella]

cant wait for all this to die down.

I hope and expect that Dublin county board look for a 'municipal' stadium to be build on the southside for Dublin GAA teams to train and play on.

it should get the full funding without fronting any money themselves, as it the precedent.

That way too, we can get all weather pitches built all around Dublin (and then around the country) - municipal pitches of course

Did the DCB not reject talks with the council about matching funds? That avenue was open to the Dublin GAA but the brain surgeons on top chose to sue instead of getting in on SDCC generosity.

This case was never about TD getting into the ground, they admitted that.

Verdict is on the courts website now, but it isnt pretty reading for the GAA.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/44bf89400b48759f802573e100429001?OpenDocument

[deiseach]

The judgement is indeed available online (Cumann Tomas Daibhis & Ors -v- South Dublin County Council) and I don't see much that should make the GAA squirm. The judge does have one cut at TD when he says that the applicant (TD) "deposes to the extensive facilities that the applicant has already been given by the Council". But while he found that TD "do not have any financial or proprietary interest in the development site", he also stated that "the applicants were entitled to make submissions", i.e. the nature of the relationship between TD and the planning process was a legitimate question to ask of the courts.

[dublinfella]

The judgement is indeed available online (Cumann Tomas Daibhis & Ors -v- South Dublin County Council) and I don't see much that should make the GAA squirm. The judge does have one cut at TD when he says that the applicant (TD) "deposes to the extensive facilities that the applicant has already been given by the Council". But while he found that TD "do not have any financial or proprietary interest in the development site", he also stated that "the applicants were entitled to make submissions", i.e. the nature of the relationship between TD and the planning process was a legitimate question to ask of the courts.

He also had a go at TD for assuming that they were the other sports and the line that the GAA were promised use of the pitch by the council.

the stadium was "subject to allocation of significant funding by the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism" and "There has been no change in the position regarding funding since the initiation of the proceedings."

So what were TD arguing?

The judge was scathing here

"It seems to this Court that this is an overriding provision which relates to the issues the subject of this application for judicial review. While it might, of course, be said that the volte-face of the Council in the light of insufficiency of funds, deprived them of their power, it is clear that that power has to be exercised not alone within the policies and objectives of the Government and any Minister of the Government so far as it may affect or relate to the function at issue, but is also subject to the provision of exchequer funding. There has been no change in the position regarding funding since the initiation of the proceedings.

The court in its discretion is further of the view that it would be wrong of the respondent to commit itself to unbudgeted expenditure or to delay the implementation of its resolution of 13th February, 2005.

The court, accordingly, refuses the relief sought by the applicants."

TD's entire case was based on the notion that the sate has no right to change its mind when new information comes to light.

[Jinxy]

Hardly "scathing" in fairness.

[lynchbhoy]

Did the DCB not reject talks with the council about matching funds? That avenue was open to the Dublin GAA but the brain surgeons on top chose to sue instead of getting in on SDCC generosity.

Matching who paying what ?
Certainly not matching rovers input into funding...so was the suggestion of matching funds  - the Dublin county board matching SDCC funds?
Why the feck would they want to do that?
I'd have said no, thats not a good deal for DCB. Paying for a facility that was too small !
Only rovers benefitted from that !
Anyhow this is a moot point in the debate.

This case was never about TD getting into the ground, they admitted that.

Not sure why it was brought to court, but certainly I wouldnt be happy with the claim that this was a municipal stadium that included ALL sports -and the claim was that it INCLUDED GAELIC GAMES- which as we know, due to the size of the pitch was not the case.

I'd agree with the campaign to stop this being called a municipal stadium, and have the smoke and daggers ( (c) bertie) done away with, the gov / SDCC couldnt be allowed to pull such a fast one by pretending that the cash giveaway bonanza to rovers was a donation to all sports in the public arena - it wasnt, and it is a straight donation to shamrock rovers fc.
sportswise I have no problem with that -  my prob is as a taxpayer, my money fully funding a private venture for a group that have been proven to be incompetent at best and criminal at worst (embezzlement and tax avoidance).
A 20% grant is fine, but not the full 100%.
Same goes for GAA clubs/intercounty grounds etc.

But as the precedent is set, the gov/sdcc should get ready to fund new GAA gorounds/all weather pitches. They will cost far less than the €15million plus that this Tallaght Rovers venture will cost !

[deiseach]

Hardly "scathing" in fairness.

Not at all scathing. But there are none so blind . . .

[deiseach]

TD's entire case was based on the notion that the sate has no right to change its mind when new information comes to light.

Putting aside the notion that  the decree of an agent of the State can constitute 'new information' to the State, this was not what TD were claiming at all. The judge states that  "the applicants argue that s. 179(4)(c) [of the Planning and Development Act, 2000] expressly provides that a resolution adopted under para. (4)(b) must be passed not later than six weeks after receipt of the manager's report and that when that period of six weeks had expired, the respondent did not have power to make the decision of 13th February, 2006". Because the Act "is silent as to the consequence if the planning authority fails to make a decision within the six-week period", the judge was obliged to interpret new law as per Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes , where he asks how we are meant to know the "Intentions Attributable to the Legislature when it Expresses None". The judge decided that given the many links in the chain of a decision like this, it "would be absurd to fetter the discretion in the exercise of an unimplementable resolution". I can't fault the judges logic, but the question still needed to be asked, and (I'll emphasis this because you can't seem to see it) he states that "the applicants were entitled to make submissions".

Due process is a marvellous thing, a necessary bulwark against authorities ignoring their own rules for their own mendacious ends.

[Bud Wiser]

authorities ignoring their own rules for their own mendacious ends.

never a truer word was spoken, or, in this case written!

http://www.firhousevillage.com/PLANNING.html